If Atlanta was Savannah (Statesboro, Stone Mountain: move, beach, trains)

[OMG2010]

If Atlanta was Located where Savannah was How do you think the city would have turned out.

[BringBackCobain]

This question is ridiculous. If Atlanta was located where Savannah was... then it would be Savannah.

The reason Atlanta became what it is was because it was located at the intersection of two major railroads. The location of where those two railroads would intersect was chosen arbitrarily. Really any location in North Georgia could have been chosen for the intersection and the result, Atlanta, would be very similar.

Savannah is ugly. Its very flat, the soil is sandy, and its hot as hell. Atlanta benefits from its topographic location - rolling hills, dense forests, a moderate temperature.

[Neemy]

We could call it Atlannah.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by BringBackCobain

This question is ridiculous. If Atlanta was located where Savannah was... then it would be Savannah.

The reason Atlanta became what it is was because it was located at the intersection of two major railroads. The location of where those two railroads would intersect was chosen arbitrarily. Really any location in North Georgia could have been chosen for the intersection and the result, Atlanta, would be very similar.

Savannah is ugly. Its very flat, the soil is sandy, and its hot as hell. Atlanta benefits from its topographic location - rolling hills, dense forests, a moderate temperature.

And the subsequent interstate highways converging on Atlanta was huge too. But by then, the decision to build those highways to Atlanta was not arbitrary. Sort of wish that railroad intersection was closer to Stone Mountain or near the Chattahoochee. Atlanta (city) lacks some natural wonder. Having the river go through the city or Stone Mountain being sort of our Central Park would be nice.

During the Olympics, some Irish tourists commented that Atlanta lacked "a center". I agree. There doesn't seem to be a real "heart" of Atlanta. Five Points and Underground don't do it. Centennial Park is nice but it doesn't feel like an Atlanta focal point. And Buckhead is sort of pulling us further apart. The Atlanta area seems so monotonous. As I travel around, it all seems the same. Only downtown seems to have some character and unfortunately, a lot of the old buildings are gone.

I haven't been to Savannah, but isn't it the case that despite it being on the ocean, it doesn't have "beaches"? The beach, if it had one, would be a plus. And they are below the infamous "gnat line".

[atlantagreg30127]

Atlanta was actually planned on being the "big city" of Georgia long ago when the founders laid the city out. That's why it's in a very neat grid pattern - because it was supposed to have become a large city over time... the "New York of the South". They assumed of course that the shipping/import/export trades would carry it into the future. Then came the railroad...

When Savannah was created, there were no trains. You had ships or carriages, and that was it. Had trains and the rails not been invented, Savannah would have become the big city of Georgia, and Atlanta if it even came to be at all, would still be "Marthasville" or something like that. But, that's not what happened. Rail came to be, Marthasville or "Terminus" got the rail lines, and it evolved into Atlanta as a result.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by BringBackCobain

This question is ridiculous. If Atlanta was located where Savannah was... then it would be Savannah.

The reason Atlanta became what it is was because it was located at the intersection of two major railroads. The location of where those two railroads would intersect was chosen arbitrarily. Really any location in North Georgia could have been chosen for the intersection and the result, Atlanta, would be very similar.

Savannah is ugly. Its very flat, the soil is sandy, and its hot as hell. Atlanta benefits from its topographic location - rolling hills, dense forests, a moderate temperature.

I Agree with this except for the Savannah is ugly part. Atlanta was a rail hub before it was even a city so you can’t really move Atlanta off the piedmont. But this is a what if thread just go with flow for fun. Think about what if more rail lines would had went near the coast, and the port of savannah was booming back then.

Instead of Savannah being Atlanta ) I would rather for Atlanta to be in a metroplex or a conurbation with Savannah maybe be where Statesboro is in Bulloch County or Candler County. That way savannah can keep it’s character and Atlanta can keep some of it’s. Atlanta couldn’t be the state capital if it was directly on the coast anyway. Like DC and Baltimore or San Francisco and San Jose. It would be cool if Savannah was Atlanta sidekick and the region identity would be the Atlanta-Savannah area. You have Atlanta’s rush with Savannah’s charm, unfortunately we loses the hills but we gain beaches. Atlanta’s Downtown, Midtown and Buckhead, Perimeter Center, Cumberland plus access to Savannah historic Downtown, Squares and Tybee Island. Than Hartsfield Jackson and Port of Savannah together would do a lot economically. The CSA would be over 6.4 mil probably over 6.5 mil and draw Hilton head MSA commuters.


YouTube - ‪Introducing The Millennium Gate Museum - Atlanta's Largest Classical Monument‬‎


YouTube - ‪Savannah GA‬‎

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by atlantagreg30127

Atlanta was actually planned on being the "big city" of Georgia long ago when the founders laid the city out. That's why it's in a very neat grid pattern - because it was supposed to have become a large city over time... the "New York of the South". They assumed of course that the shipping/import/export trades would carry it into the future. Then came the railroad...

I don't see how. Prior to the railroads, cities grew around water transport which Atlanta to this day doesn't have. There was talk years ago about building a series of locks on the Chattahoochee up to Atlanta so that Atlanta could be a "port city" as well. As it is now, Atlanta is a hub of rail, road, and air transport.

When Savannah was created, there were no trains. You had ships or carriages, and that was it. Had trains and the rails not been invented, Savannah would have become the big city of Georgia, and Atlanta if it even came to be at all, would still be "Marthasville" or something like that. But, that's not what happened. Rail came to be, Marthasville or "Terminus" got the rail lines, and it evolved into Atlanta as a result.

From what I heard, Atlanta was made the capital because of its elevation among other things. That gives Atlanta four seasons and is temperature-wise cooler, and as alluded to before, Atlanta is above the "gnat line".

It appears Savannah doesn't have nice beaches so I guess all the ocean really offers is a place for port facilities. Seems like you have to go to SC to get to a "beach".

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by atlantagreg30127

Atlanta was actually planned on being the "big city" of Georgia long ago when the founders laid the city out. That's why it's in a very neat grid pattern - because it was supposed to have become a large city over time... the "New York of the South". They assumed of course that the shipping/import/export trades would carry it into the future. Then came the railroad...

I'm assuming that's a typo at the beginning of the first sentence. It was Savannah that was supposed to be Georgia's big city. Can't blame you for having Atlanta on your mind though :P

[ATLnSAV]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I don't see how. Prior to the railroads, cities grew around water transport which Atlanta to this day doesn't have. There was talk years ago about building a series of locks on the Chattahoochee up to Atlanta so that Atlanta could be a "port city" as well. As it is now, Atlanta is a hub of rail, road, and air transport.

From what I heard, Atlanta was made the capital because of its elevation among other things. That gives Atlanta four seasons and is temperature-wise cooler, and as alluded to before, Atlanta is above the "gnat line".

It appears Savannah doesn't have nice beaches so I guess all the ocean really offers is a place for port facilities. Seems like you have to go to SC to get to a "beach".

Where did you get the idea Savannah doesn't have beaches? Tybee Island is a beach -- not a huge resort beach but very popular.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by OMG2010

If Atlanta was Located where Savannah was How do you think the city would have turned out.

If Atlanta was located where Savannah is, then Uncle Billy and his troops would have had a much shorter march to the sea.