Atlanta's size compared to Houston (Rome, Dublin: rankings, cities, accountancy)

[klmquiroz]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Augusta isn't that big....1 day is enough to experience a good chunk of Augusta. Why would that need to be a multi-day trip? to do what? Please tell me.

I'm unimpressed with cities that lack culture, history, sophistication and walkability. I'm very impressed with most Northeastern cities, NOLA, Savannah, Charleston, SF, LA, Seattle, Chicago....I mean, what do these cities have in common? Most of them have very walkable cores and neighborhoods that ooze character and energy.

That's something Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas lack for the most part. This is why I'm not impressed with these cities and most southern cities. Just sprawl...people don't vacation and tour cities for sprawl. They tour them for the city itself, which those three don't have much of.

I have to agree, they're spot on Augusta is uncultured, and boring as heck. while Savannah and Nola aren't my cup of tea either. LA, Seattle, Portland, Nashville,Miami heck even Charlotte has more going to it then Augusta ever will.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

If I can do it, then you can. Like I said, you seem to lack an adventurous spirit.



I guess a place would have to be exciting, if one's own personal life was just that dull. For me, "interesting" is good enough. There's a time and place for exciting, but I don't need it all the time.

If you and I both took a trip to New Orleans, you'd be the one hanging out on Bourbon Street. I'd be in The Marigny making friends with the locals. I think that's the difference between you and I.

You're right, but I'm young. I like to be in areas full of energy and excitement. Plus I like taking transit. I don't like driving at all. I like to be able to walk to the store, get some groceries, then be on my way. I like to be in areas full of young people because I'm young myself!

That's the difference between you and I.

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

You're right, but I'm young. I like to be in areas full of energy and excitement. Plus I like taking transit. I don't like driving at all. I like to be able to walk to the store, get some groceries, then be on my way. I like to be in areas full of young people because I'm young myself!

That's the difference between you and I.

You probably are younger than me, and I am past that stage in my life where I need life to be one long party. I've graduated to a stage where life has more meaning and depth.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

You probably are younger than me, and I am past that stage in my life where I need life to be one long party. I've graduated to a stage where life has more meaning and depth.

Okay? What does that have to do with what type of cities you prefer? So everyone who likes to be in energetic and vibrant neighborhoods has lives that lack meaning and depth? Not everyone likes being in a quiet suburb with nothing going on, but kiddies playing outside.

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Okay? What does that have to do with what type of cities you prefer? So everyone who likes to be in energetic and vibrant neighborhoods has lives that lack meaning and depth?

No, not everyone. You, possibly.

Not everyone likes being in a quiet suburb with nothing going on, but kiddies playing outside.

I live in the inner loop of Houston. "Quiet" does not exist in my neighborhood. You can't even hear the crickets chirp at night, and the only kids around here are babies and toddlers that have young, active parents.

[disposable2]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

No, not everyone. You, possibly.



I live in the inner loop of Houston. "Quiet" does not exist in my neighborhood. You can't even hear the crickets chirp at night, and the only kids around here are babies and toddlers that have young, active parents.

LOL i call BS on that second statement, innerloop Houston is sleepy by big city standards

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by disposable2

LOL i call BS on that second statement, innerloop Houston is sleepy by big city standards

Right? LOL.

[universallymodern]

Originally Posted by lastminutemom

Yes. But it isn't just the random layout (and it is random) but it is the fact that Houston is nearly 600 square miles and Atlanta 132 square miles. Metro Houston (Greater Houston) is about 10,000 square miles while metro Atlanta is about 8800 square miles.

Have you ever been to Houston? Everything feels very spacious, lots of ranch homes in neighborhoods (older ones) as well as huge amounts of parking lots.

Houston is very sprawly, in my opinion much more so than Atlanta.
Everything is bigger in Texas.

I'm sorry but you are wrong on virtually everything you wrote. You are correct that the actual city limits of Houston are bigger, but Atlanta has annexed 3 times since 2007, with one pending (Sandtown). This has added a few square miles to it. Also, there is a movement to annex Druid Hills. This still leaves Houston's city limits larger. Technically, Houston's bigger than NYC in land, but that isn't saying much! Mostly due to Atlanta's confined state surrounded by suburbs who don't want annexed or have incorporated. It's equally true that city proper populations are pretty much irrelevant in today's metropolitan world. You are also correct that Houston's metro is about 10,000 square miles. But it doesn't really mean much. You SHOULD already know that the size of a metropolitan area depends a great deal on the size of the counties therein. Atlanta's has almost 30 counties but they are small. Texas counties are very large by comparison. Lot's of metro's have bigger land area's than some with larger populations. You can't deduce anything from that. In any case, there is NO large scale difference in the two sizes (10,000 is *NOT* significantly larger than 9,000!) The city of Houston has been able to annex freely, so yes it is very sprawl. But Atlanta's SUBURBAN area's outside the city limits sprawl further than Houston. Atlanta's developed land area is bigger than Houston's. Why? For the past 2 decades metro Atlanta was #1 in new home construction, #1 in job creation, and #1 in corporate relocation. Over the past 25 years, it has generally grown faster than Houston, or any of Texas' metros. So, you can stop twisting data into pretzels to say something that you want to say. Both are huge metropolitan cities and are relatively the SAME size overall. And Texas isn't the biggest state. Alaska dwarfs it. Everything's bigger in Alaska, including America's biggest city at over 1,900 square miles.

[universallymodern]

Originally Posted by -StarBright-

First, Atlanta's metro is only about 5,457,831, which makes it the 9th largest metro. Houston's metro population is about 6,177,035, which makes it fifth. The city of Houston has 2,160,821 people in city limits,which makes it the 4th largest. Atlanta has only 443,775 people in city limits. Houston has a much larger population. Downtown Houston also seems more urban in my opinion. Houston also has a lot more land. I think Houston seems larger simply because it is.
Houston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Atlanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's still not a huge difference! A few hundred thousand doesn't matter much when you're talking millions! And he meant CSA population, which was correct. There is only a slight difference in the size of the two. You can't just focus on one definition and ignore the other. It is the ATLANTA CSA, not the GAINESVILLE CSA. It is the HOUSTON CSA, not the SUGAR LAND CSA. Both Houston and Atlanta are absorbing surrounding areas. Until the real estate collapse, Atlanta was regularly outstripping Houston in population growth, so size is not set in stone. Atlanta's real estate market collapsed in 1991 too, but it recovered stronger than ever (and grew faster than ever).

[aries4118]

Global city - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Atlanta = Alpha- City

Houston = Beta+ City