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.
Just curious. I started an earlier thread asking about moving there with no job but having years of IT experience. I'm currently working but don't care for the city I'm in. But I digress. Atlanta natives have always been hospitable, welcoming, and down to each to me. Of course, the city has a lot of people from all over now. Does that hospitality still exist, in your opinion? I look at the social aspect first and not just based on a career opportunity. No one wants to live in a city where they don't dig the vibe. I mean, the people make the city and that includes the workplace. Thanks!
Last edited by NewNashville; 05-01-2016 at 12:57 PM..
I'm a native and come from a long line of natives to Atlanta.
We still exist, but we are scattered all over the area and are outnumbered. Many of us are also in the suburbs where we have followed the same trends from the past. I think more natives ended up in single family home areas that tended to be quieter and have a slightly more rural-ish feel than the busier areas.
I basically have noticed two trends....
Most people who move here have to adopt our culture to blend in an appreciate it or they moved here looking for that. In many ways this has kept the hospitality alive, but it dilutes itself over time. I would say for a large cosmopolitan city compared to other peer cities we have maintained that character, but it is diluted from what it was.
The other trend is many people come here for 4 or 5 years and think they know the pulse of this city and its history very well, but I find them to be mostly ignorant of it. Many newcomers put their own new spin on things to create the arguments of things they like to seek further justification.
Could you elaborate some? Not trying to start any type of beef. But natives of any city seem to have a more balanced view on how a city has changed, in my opinion. I like meeting new people and enjoy people who like meeting new people. I also know Atlanta has this reputation lately of being somewhat materialistic. I like nice things too. But I tend to look at a person's character first. And I know some migrate there with agendas. I believe you have to give back to the communities you move into, not just leech off of them. That's what makes them better.
My family has lived in the present-day Metro Atlanta region since before Atlanta existed (1821 to be exact) and I love Atlanta more than ever. In fact, I don't know anyone of any generation that is not proud of Georgia and Atlanta (despite what some on this forum will try to tell you). That's not to say I'm proud of all its history, past or recent, or don't get frustrated from time-to-time about certain aspects of my home city and state.
To LOVE a place means to embrace it, warts and all. It also means you don't give up on it -- you work and strive and pray and hope for the best for it until the day you die. Because it is your home, after all. And many MANY thousands of newcomers to Atlanta share this attitude. It's not unque to natives, which is why Atlanta is such a boomtown and popular with so many transplants.
People who say they "love" Atlanta but then turn around and complain about everything aren't being honest, IMO. You'll hear some "back where I came from"' comments in Metro Atlanta, but by and large I find that's the minority.
And just FYI ... this is why I never question the love of loyalty anybody has for their home city or state. It's easy to ask how somebody in Mississippi, for example, can get up everyday and feel proud to call Mississippi home -- but unless you're from Mississippi, you can't possibly understand.
My family has lived in the present-day Metro Atlanta region since before Atlanta existed (1821 to be exact) and I love Atlanta more than ever. In fact, I don't know anyone of any generation that is not proud of Georgia and Atlanta (despite what some on this forum will try to tell you). That's not to say I'm proud of all its history, past or recent, or don't get frustrated from time-to-time about certain aspects of my home city and state.
To LOVE a place means to embrace it, warts and all. It also means you don't give up on it -- you work and strive and pray and hope for the best for it until the day you die. Because it is your home, after all.
People who say they "love" Atlanta but then turn around and complain about everything aren't being honest, IMO.
And just FYI ... this is why I never question the love of loyalty anybody has for their home city or state. It's easy to ask how somebody in Mississippi, for example, can get up everyday and feel proud to call Mississippi home -- but unless you're from Mississippi, you can't possibly understand.
I can relate. I'm from Memphis. But my relationship with the place is estranged. It's like a drug addicted family member you've intervened with but you've accepted the reality of not being able to help him/her. I'm from the place but I can't say I love it. I believe home is wherever you feel at home.
Well I don't want to get too detailed for the purposes of this thread tbh, but I'll try to provide some examples.
Much of it has to do on what it and isn't a nice area. There are many nice areas that are discarded, simply because they aren't what is "hot" or in new suburban areas shiny and new.
Somewhat related is people who haven't been here for a long time have a hard time seeing and understanding how places use to be nice from what they are today and they often try to attribute the wrong details to why something rises are falls.
Its many small things. I'll try to provide one small example that shouldn't be too controversial.
There is an area near me called Northlake. It has some suburban style office buildings. It isn't a bad area, but it didn't become an edge city... Like Perimeter Center. We had one of such posters try to argue it only didn't because it didn't have a MARTA train. Of course, he is ignoring many details and trends that existed in the 80s, 90s, and 00s that have little to nothing to do with transportation to why the wealth built in certain areas and not in others. The basic issue is there is an agenda with his argument, not necessarily good or bad, but not really accurate in how he wants to think of the area.
Another set of issues frequently revolve around Midtown.
It is close enough to downtown people remark on it as it is is a Downtown (and would have older downtown amenities) or they see it as Atlanta's skyline is unbalanced with a gap in it.
From my perspective it is a separate business district that grew from an older suburban retail/industrial area where two freeways converged and bottle-necked. It really became what it is in a matter of just 3 or 4 decades.
The issue is its so successful people judge it as a traditional downtown or an extension of our downtown.
The last issue I would pay more attention to is the intowners vs out of towners, which is commonly boiled down to a silly arbitrary concept of ITP vs OTP (Inside/Outside the perimter / I-285).
I see many of the more aggressive opinions on this subject coming from short to medium term transplants that are very ignorant of the Atlanta region. They often make very anti-regional opinions, while even claiming they are pro-region, but they only want what is best for the area they bought into and have a disdain of outsiders or what outsiders from their area needs.
I find most natives tend to be more heavily invested in multiple areas across town. Our families followed the trends of the past, we grew up in different areas of town and worked in many others.
What I will largely fault many natives for is lack of transportation investment across the board. We always had a do more with less mentality. Many people move here and adopt that, because either they aren't invested in the region for the long-haul or they come from a high tax area and they moved here specifically to be more conservative. Overall, ignoring debates on what the investments should be and ignoring the -how-, we have spent about 2.5 decades under-investing approximately .5-1% GDP on transportation infrastructure than previous generations. This is a particular concern of mine that I fault all for, including natives.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 6 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,466 posts, read 44,115,130 times
Reputation: 16866
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwkimbro
Well I don't want to get too detailed for the purposes of this thread tbh, but I'll try to provide some examples.
Much of it has to do on what it and isn't a nice area. There are many nice areas that are discarded, simply because they aren't what is "hot" or in new suburban areas shiny and new.
Somewhat related is people who haven't been here for a long time have a hard time seeing and understanding how places use to be nice from what they are today and they often try to attribute the wrong details to why something rises are falls.
Its many small things. I'll try to provide one small example that shouldn't be too controversial.
There is an area near me called Northlake. It has some suburban style office buildings. It isn't a bad area, but it didn't become an edge city... Like Perimeter Center. We had one of such posters try to argue it only didn't because it didn't have a MARTA train. Of course, he is ignoring many details and trends that existed in the 80s, 90s, and 00s that have little to nothing to do with transportation to why the wealth built in certain areas and not in others. The basic issue is there is an agenda with his argument, not necessarily good or bad, but not really accurate in how he wants to think of the area.
Another set of issues frequently revolve around Midtown.
It is close enough to downtown people remark on it as it is is a Downtown (and would have older downtown amenities) or they see it as Atlanta's skyline is unbalanced with a gap in it.
From my perspective it is a separate business district that grew from an older suburban retail/industrial area where two freeways converged and bottle-necked. It really became what it is in a matter of just 3 or 4 decades.
The issue is its so successful people judge it as a traditional downtown or an extension of our downtown.
The last issue I would pay more attention to is the intowners vs out of towners, which is commonly boiled down to a silly arbitrary concept of ITP vs OTP (Inside/Outside the perimter / I-285).
I see many of the more aggressive opinions on this subject coming from short to medium term transplants that are very ignorant of the Atlanta region. They often make very anti-regional opinions, while even claiming they are pro-region, but they only want what is best for the area they bought into and have a disdain of outsiders or what outsiders from their area needs.
I find most natives tend to be more heavily invested in multiple areas across town. Our families followed the trends of the past, we grew up in different areas of town and worked in many others.
What I will largely fault many natives for is lack of transportation investment across the board. We always had a do more with less mentality. Many people move here and adopt that, because either they aren't invested in the region for the long-haul or they come from a high tax area and they moved here specifically to be more conservative. Overall, ignoring debates on what the investments should be and ignoring the -how-, we have spent about 2.5 decades under-investing approximately .5-1% GDP on transportation infrastructure than previous generations. This is a particular concern of mine that I fault all for, including natives.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to criticize native Atlantans as being unsupportive of this (there is certainly no empirical evidence of such a thing). I'm a ninth-generation Atlantan and am certainly pro-transportation, particularly in the arena of heavy rail.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to criticize native Atlantans as being unsupportive of this (there is certainly no empirical evidence of such a thing). I'm a ninth-generation Atlantan and am certainly pro-transportation, particularly in the arena of heavy rail.
Natives were definitely part of a shift to Republican voting trends during these decades. The old anti-Republican voting affects died off entirely by the 90s. I'll never forget my great-grandfather until the very end cursed Republicans. Nothing would ever allow him to even consider changing his mind. The generations after were all too happy to support Republicans and became quite popular.
The balancing act of a pseudo-conservative/moderate democrat was lost.
These newly elected Republicans struggled to find budgets to cut from that of prior Democrats and transportation spending and other types of discretionary spending were an easy target.
Agree with it or not many natives voted in the people that caused it. Anecdotally I saw this first hand from many from my parents, to neighbors, and from others in from my church.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to criticize native Atlantans as being unsupportive of this (there is certainly no empirical evidence of such a thing). I'm a ninth-generation Atlantan and am certainly pro-transportation, particularly in the arena of heavy rail.
NOT TO MENTION ... It was the previous generation of NATIVE ATLANTANS who conceived, funded and built MARTA. So yes, his whole argument is completely unfair and unfounded.
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.
