Atlanta's not a world class city[CL Article] (Boston: university, medical)

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by AtlantaIsHot

They were heavily damaged but not destroyed just like Atlanta wasn't destroyed entirely. The populations of all mostly returned and began to rebuild almost immediately. Berlin and London were much larger than Atlanta at the time they were damaged. London and Berlin had already developed into urban areas before the automobile came. Those cities were ALWAYS urban because that's the way cities developed before the age of the automobile, suburbia, and highways.

The "age of the automobile" followed closely behind WWII. Berlin was further hampered by the Cold War and the division of the city. Their comeback was under much greater duress.

And I thought the issue was "World Class", not "urbanity".

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by AtlantaIsHot

San Francisco was already a sizeable city of almost 400,000 people with an established highly urbanized development pattern. Atlanta was a small town of 9,000. No valid comparison exists between the two disasters.

Ok, but the question to which I responded was "How many of the "world class cities" were in near ashes 150 years ago?" so I showed a photo of SF after the quake. SF was destroyed much more recently than Atlanta. But if your point is that the original question is irrelevant because Atlanta was an fairly inconsequential backwater when it was destroyed, then point taken. I didn't realize that Atlanta was so small during the war.

[afonega1]

Originally Posted by EarlofCardigan

Atlanta's lack of dramatic new buildings also is an issue. When I was in NY , I observed a boom in 1,000+ Foot towers that are being built. They even have a 1,550' tower under construction, together with around 5 in the 1,200' to 1,400' range, and around 5 in the 1,000' range that are under construction. In fact, they're building something called Hudson Yards which is bigger than most cities' entire downtowns.

My point is: they don't need to ask if they're world- class. It's unmistakable.

Are you serious? Atlanta has almost every famous architect represented from around the world.

Not to mention you ignore know e of the biggest urban renewal projects I. North America:The BeltLine.

"Luxembourg*– On May 21, 2014, the International Real Estate Federation (FIABCI) recognized the Atlanta BeltLine as the best environmental rehabilitation project in the world during their World Conference focused on Building Humanity."

[bu2]

Originally Posted by AtlantaIsHot

You are not quite correct in your claims. Atlanta has two world class museums in the High and the Carlos. The Atlanta Opera has won several awards. It also has an awarded Ballet. It doesn't have enough though, I'll give you that.

New York is not a political center either but that doesn't stop it.

Atlanta actually IS still a major media center. Only N.Y. and L.A. are ahead of it in terms of cable, internet, and satellite transmissions. CNN is still there and so is TBS superstation and the Turner media empire (HLN, Cartoon Network, TCM, TNT, Adult Swim, TruTV, Boomerang). Atlanta remains the broadcasting headquarters for The Weather Channel as well. Atlanta is also a hub of music and is regarded as the new Motown. In addition, it is a major TV and radio broadcasting hub for the southeast.

Atlanta is a world class city but it's not of the stature of New York and likely won't ever be. There is usually only ONE city that is the "capital" of that country. London has no competition in the U.K. and Paris has no competition in France and Tokyo has no competition in Japan. Germany is a little of an exception as it has Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich, and Hamburg which all seem to have world class features.

Ah, a booster. I walked into the High and wondered where the exhibits were. Then I realized I had seen them all. The High is not in any sense a world class museum. Carlos is nice, but it is small. As for the ballet, they were operating with recorded, not live music. That is not a serious ballet company.

[bizchick86]

Originally Posted by bu2

Ah, a booster. I walked into the High and wondered where the exhibits were. Then I realized I had seen them all. The High is not in any sense a world class museum. Carlos is nice, but it is small. As for the ballet, they were operating with recorded, not live music. That is not a serious ballet company.

I think people are forgetting that we don't mean "cool" or "nationally prominent." We're talking about the world here. And there are a ton of friggin cities out there.

[JC84]

Originally Posted by bu2

Ah, a booster. I walked into the High and wondered where the exhibits were. Then I realized I had seen them all. The High is not in any sense a world class museum. Carlos is nice, but it is small. As for the ballet, they were operating with recorded, not live music. That is not a serious ballet company.

I agree, I found the High very disappointing, particularly the 'folk art' section which looked as if the art was put together with glue and crayons. If you want a world class art museum, try MFA in Boston or the Phildelphia museum of Art

[EarlofCardigan]

Or in NY:

1. The Met;
2. Moma;
3. Guggenheim;
4. Whitney;
5. Frick;
6. Neue Gallerie;
7. JP Morgan
8. Asia Society;
9. Ruben Museum.....

On a recent trip, I went to a little-known museum in Manhattan called the Hispanic Society. It has tons of paintings by El Greco, Velasquez, and Goya.

And the foregoing is just an example of Art museums. That's world-class!

[afonega1]

Originally Posted by JC84

I agree, I found the High very disappointing, particularly the 'folk art' section which looked as if the art was put together with glue and crayons. If you want a world class art museum, try MFA in Boston or the Phildelphia museum of Art

The High does not have great permanent collections but it does have a rotation of exhibits that rarely are seen outside of their home museums.

Atlanta has one of the closest relationship with the Louver than any other institution anywhere.
I personally thought the folk art exhibits were cool . Especially the Howard Finster collection.

[emcee squared]

Originally Posted by arjay57

These things make us world class in my opinion.

What do you think it takes?

I didn't mean to insult your opinion.

I think it takes a robust and diversified economy, national and/or worldwide media exposure, world-renowned landmarks, and a place people strive to live.

Atlanta does well in these categories, but I don't believe it does well enough to be considered 'world class.' In the U.S., I consider New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C., and San Francisco world-class. Atlanta is capable of moving up the ranks of U.S. cities in the future; being a regional capital certainly helps.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by emcee squared

I didn't mean to insult your opinion.

I think it takes a robust and diversified economy, national and/or worldwide media exposure, world-renowned landmarks, and a place people strive to live.

Atlanta does well in these categories, but I don't believe it does well enough to be considered 'world class.' In the U.S., I consider New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C., and San Francisco world-class. Atlanta is capable of moving up the ranks of U.S. cities in the future; being a regional capital certainly helps.

I think Boston belongs in that category also. Philadelphia is pretty close too IMO.