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.
Stating that you prefer DFW due to geography is one thing, but that doesn't make it better than ATL.
Yeah, of course, that's why I said I prefer it. I don't think you can objectively say one is better than the other it entirely depends on the criteria. I like the DFW airport options better than Atlanta.
I'm not a big fan of Atlanta. It's very humid, even worse than DFW, the traffic is terrible, and while it's prettier than DFW (not saying much, lets be honest) it's nothing to write home about. I think the whole "City in a Forest" is stupid, it just means it's very suburban an not very dense. It has the worst urban fabric of any large city in the US. Really, the only thing it has going for it from an urban perspective is it has heavy rail instead of the dinky dart we have in Dallas.
Dallas is sprawly as well, but over all Dallas has a much better urban grid and fabric.
I've known people (all southerners, if that matters) who have moved to Atlanta, hated it and left or are desperately trying to leave.
Of course that is just their opinion, lots of people prefer Atlanta, but there are plenty of people who prefer Dallas to Atlanta and it's not an unreasonable position to hold..
"Straight roads" are simple to build if your terrain is overall FLAT! LOL,
So why is San Francisco, the hilliest US city on a grid?
The roads in Atlanta are deliberately not straight, they wanted to create a certain suburban look and feel. The problem is it doesn't scale well, when neighborhoods right out downtown/midtown already don't have grids. It makes moving up the urban density scale very difficult.
Yeah, of course, that's why I said I prefer it. I don't think you can objectively say one is better than the other it entirely depends on the criteria. I like the DFW airport options better than Atlanta.
I'm not a big fan of Atlanta. It's very humid, even worse than DFW, the traffic is terrible, and while it's prettier than DFW (not saying much, lets be honest) it's nothing to write home about. I think the whole "City in a Forest" is stupid, it just means it's very suburban an not very dense. It has the worst urban fabric of any large city in the US. Really, the only thing it has going for it from an urban perspective is it has heavy rail instead of the dinky dart we have in Dallas.
Dallas is sprawly as well, but over all Dallas has a much better urban grid and fabric.
I've known people (all southerners, if that matters) who have moved to Atlanta, hated it and left or are desperately trying to leave.
Of course that is just their opinion, lots of people prefer Atlanta, but there are plenty of people who prefer Dallas to Atlanta and it's not an unreasonable position to hold..
All I said was having a preference for one airport over the other due to closer proximity to a certain part of the country doesn't mean said airport is better; no more, no less. It's been well documented on multiple occasions that you're no fan of Atlanta so there wasn't really any need to go through your litany of reasons again.
All I said was having a preference for one airport over the other due to closer proximity to a certain part of the country doesn't mean said airport is better; no more, no less. It's been well documented on multiple occasions that you're no fan of Atlanta so there wasn't really any need to go through your litany of reasons again.
Thats fair, though I think you can make the argument that being centrally located makes it a better airport all other things equal. Atlanta is only better for eastern destinations while DFW is better for the country as a whole.
As several people noted, the Atlanta suburbs are much hillier with more trees. That said, I think the Dallas ones have their own virtues. What I find particularly interesting about the Dallas ones is, how dense they are (for suburbs). I notice a lot of them even have alleys. I think the flatness of the landscape, coupled with what were probably large original land holdings with relatively few trees that could be developed into large, master-planned type communities, is what lends the landscape of Dallas to have the density that it has. Though I find the alleys particularly interesting, since you rarely see that in newer suburbs (particularly ones that aren't supposed to be "neotraditional" developments).
I vote for whichever one gets more snow on average (which, in both cases, probably isn't much).
I personally feel that the Atlanta area is MUCH more beautiful than the Texas area. All that aside, the homes in North Metro Atlanta really are more eclectic and interesting architecturally, as evidenced bu the photographs.
Thats fair, though I think you can make the argument that being centrally located makes it a better airport all other things equal. Atlanta is only better for eastern destinations while DFW is better for the country as a whole.
Nah that's way too subjective and biased, as you have just demonstrated. If ATL is only "better" for eastern destinations, then DFW can't be "better" for the country as a whole since that includes eastern destinations. Also, from that basis, I could argue that ATL is "better" since there are more destinations in the eastern half of the country. And why limit it to just U.S. destinations? ATL is closer to Caribbean, popular Canadian, European, and African destinations also. But geography is a fixed feature that an airport has no control over so no, that shouldn't be the basis upon which one airport is deemed to be better than another. From an objective standpoint, the better airport would be overall more efficient, better designed, cleaner, have lower ticket prices on average, have more nonstop destinations, have more international destinations, have more dining/retail options, etc.
Nah that's way too subjective and biased, as you have just demonstrated. If ATL is only "better" for eastern destinations, then DFW can't be "better" for the country as a whole since that includes eastern destinations. Also, from that basis, I could argue that ATL is "better" since there are more destinations in the eastern half of the country. And why limit it to just U.S. destinations? ATL is closer to Caribbean, popular Canadian, European, and African destinations also. But geography is a fixed feature that an airport has no control over so no, that shouldn't be the basis upon which one airport is deemed to be better than another. From an objective standpoint, the better airport would be overall more efficient, better designed, cleaner, have lower ticket prices on average, have more nonstop destinations, have more international destinations, have more dining/retail options, etc.
Dallas is going to have lower average flight times to the geographic US. Atlanta is pretty far east, and not really that close to the other east coast cities. NYC is still a 2 hour flight from Atlanta after all.
All location is subjective unless you put a value on what you think is important. It's only objective if you have a clearly stated ruler, which I said was travel in the US.
Most of my travel for long weekends is in the US, so Dallas is better for that. When I fly over seas, it's for longer periods of time, so an extra hour or two doesn't matter as much for a week+ long trip IMO. A shorter flight to San Francisco or Denver, and a only slightly longer flight to Boston or NYC matters more to me if it's for 2 days and not 2 weeks.
Atlanta is closer to Europe/Africa, but Dallas is going to be closer to most of Latin America and Asia. It's sort of a mater of preference. DFW is also closer to the parts of Canada I like best, BC.
As far as rating airports? I think prices, destinations, and flight times are the most important things. I don't care at all how the airport dining or retail is, thats significantly less important to the point where its a non factor for most people. Design and cleanliness are also important, but much less so than other factors, if that was the case all sorts of smaller not well known airports would dominate the discussion.
Based what I care about, DFW is clearly the better airport, but what you value is clearly different and thats fine.
As several people noted, the Atlanta suburbs are much hillier with more trees. That said, I think the Dallas ones have their own virtues. What I find particularly interesting about the Dallas ones is, how dense they are (for suburbs). I notice a lot of them even have alleys. I think the flatness of the landscape, coupled with what were probably large original land holdings with relatively few trees that could be developed into large, master-planned type communities, is what lends the landscape of Dallas to have the density that it has. Though I find the alleys particularly interesting, since you rarely see that in newer suburbs (particularly ones that aren't supposed to be "neotraditional" developments).
I vote for whichever one gets more snow on average (which, in both cases, probably isn't much).
Yeah lots of DFW has alleys, which is something I actually like about the area.
Neither get much snow, but DFW is a shorter cheaper flight away from Colorado and Utah.
Dallas is going to have lower average flight times to the geographic US. Atlanta is pretty far east, and not really that close to the other east coast cities. NYC is still a 2 hour flight from Atlanta after all.
That's not far at all in my book, and half the time it takes to get there from DFW. But my point is that if you're saying ATL is better for eastern destinations, you can't then argue that DFW is better for all destinations since those would be inclusive of eastern destinations as well. It's an inherently self-contradictory statement.
Quote:
All location is subjective unless you put a value on what you think is important. It's only objective if you have a clearly stated ruler, which I said was travel in the US.
Most of my travel for long weekends is in the US, so Dallas is better for that. When I fly over seas, it's for longer periods of time, so an extra hour or two doesn't matter as much for a week+ long trip IMO. A shorter flight to San Francisco or Denver, and a only slightly longer flight to Boston or NYC matters more to me if it's for 2 days and not 2 weeks.
Atlanta is closer to Europe/Africa, but Dallas is going to be closer to most of Latin America and Asia. It's sort of a mater of preference. DFW is also closer to the parts of Canada I like best, BC.
As far as rating airports? I think prices, destinations, and flight times are the most important things. I don't care at all how the airport dining or retail is, thats significantly less important to the point where its a non factor for most people. Design and cleanliness are also important, but much less so than other factors, if that was the case all sorts of smaller not well known airports would dominate the discussion.
Based what I care about, DFW is clearly the better airport, but what you value is clearly different and thats fine.
It would have been clearer if you had initially said DFW works better for me as it sounded as though you were speaking more objectively, but I get you.
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.
