Why more people are relocating to 'secondary' cities like Atlanta (Columbus: how much, place to live)

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

Technically if it loosely relate to anything stated in OP article it's on topic regardless if it's addressing the main point of the article. Especially with the OP influencing of the direction of the conversation.

It's not even loosely related.

Let's move on please.

[atler8]

Throwing my 2 cents into the equation here, I'd offer that there are really only 3 top tier cities/metros in the United States. They are New York, Los Angeles & Chicago. And when putting our largest cities or metros into the worldwide mix, it's even more obvious that that is the case.

Stepping back from some data being bandied about here, if a neutral observer were to visit say the 20 largest American metros (in terms of population only) & then be completely objective about what they saw & experienced, it would seem to be almost obvious that New York City, Chicago & Los Angeles are without parallel elsewhere in the U.S. in terms of their urban critical mass.
Metro Chicago may be surpassed before long in terms of population by some other growing monster metro, say Houston for example, but there is no comparison whatsoever between the huge footprint & urban critical mass of the central Chicago core & that of Houston. (Let's be clear that I'm not picking on Houston.)

As for Atlanta, it's grown tremendously since I arrived here in 1979 but I know via my repeated visits elsewhere that it pales in comparison to the top 3 cities & I gladly accept our status as a 2nd tier city, which by most measurements would place the nearby competitor cities of Nashville & Charlotte in the 3rd tier rank.
By the way, I saw Dick Williams get in a snit over our recent description as a "2nd tier status" city on his channel 5 Sunday morning show & I had to laugh at how petty his outrage seemed.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

It's not even loosely related.

Let's move on please.

If the author and thread tittle mention Atlanta as secondary city and posters want to address that little part, that is something loosely related to the article and thread regardless if it's not the main point of it. But yes let move on this debate what is and what isn't is definitely off topic.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

If the author and thread tittle mention Atlanta as secondary city and posters want to address that little part, that is something loosely related to the article and thread regardless if it's not the main point of it. But yes let move on this debate what is and what isn't is definitely off topic.

But it didn't even have anything to do with being a "secondary" city. As usual, topics digress and keep digressing until the current topic of discussion has nothing to do with the actual topic as reflected in the thread title.

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by citidata18

Why do you keep bringing up Boston? I certainly didn't.

But to bite any way, the Boston region is also sprawly and it doesn't help the argument you're trying to make against the Atlanta region not being sprawly.



Then what's the point of you arguing?

It's like being obsessed over a door knob when the entire house is being renovated.

Litteally all metros are sprawling, and this isn't my point, my point was Atlanta core is actually a top 10 dense and populated region in the country.

Atlanta does sprawl but population and size isn't due to sprawl, people have this idea that if you took Atlanta, Houston, Dallas and Miami sprawl away they drop a tier away from SF, Boston, Philadelphia, DC and etc this false. They still would be peers. I brought up Boston because Boston is consider a urban densely populated Metro area, and Another reason I brought it up it's the 10th largest metro. So Atlanta would still be hanging out with the largest MSA in counties.

My point of arguing is when you called ATL MSA "generous" in a conservation calling Atlanta a secondary city in comparison to east and west coast cities. Instead of just focusing on just the larger context on the article you defended the smug and language of it. This why no one is talking about the larger context of the article.

[goofy328]

Interesting point in that video is that you still need to make $20 an hour to live in a decent neighborhood in Atlanta.

[citidata18]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

...Litteally all metros are sprawling...

Yes...some a lot more than others.

Originally Posted by chiatldal

...I brought up Boston because Boston is consider a urban densely populated Metro area...

Says who?

Originally Posted by chiatldal

...My point of arguing is when you called ATL MSA "generous..."

Because it is. There are numerous regions where if their MSA was as large in land area as Atlanta, they'd have a much larger population.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by citidata18

Because it is. There are numerous regions where if their MSA was as large in land area as Atlanta, they'd have a much larger population.

But they aren't because the commuting patterns aren't there. They are in Atlanta.

[citidata18]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

But they aren't because the commuting patterns aren't there. They are in Atlanta.

Which gets back to my original point about the MSA definition being flawed and there being multiple ways to measure the size of a region.

Like I said before, it's ridiculous for someone to claim the San Francisco and DC regions are smaller than Dallas and Houston because they have different commuting patterns. It's especially ridiculous for someone from Atlanta to make that claim.

[JMatl]

It's especially ridiculous for someone from Atlanta to make that claim.

How so?