Buckhead vs Hoboken (City life and Access) (live, best, state)

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by 5ive8ight5ive

can someone please show me where i can find the code of conduct for CD? there HAS to be some kind of violation for calling Atlanta urban and Queens 'partly urban' in the same breath. lmao. Atlanta simply isn't urban in the way that most people have defined the word for a long, long, time. If you guys would like to implement your own definition of the word in order to cater to Atlanta--then be my guest. But you're not fooling the rest of us. i REALLY wanna start a what's more urban 'Queens' or 'Atlanta' poll just to show you utterly incomparable these two are, but I know a bunch of you will complain to the moderators and have it deleted. so I wont bother; even I admit that the urbanity discussion is getting exhausting.

Geez, take a chill pill dude. You're acting as if someone just called God a sissy. It's not that serious.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by Galounger

The OP asked which city offers better Urban Living not which has more Urban translated by you into more dense living. I never participated in this density match in the first place. If your formula of More Density= Better Urban Living was true then the South Bronx or the Cabrinni Green projects of Chicago offer better urban living than Downtown Seattle or the Backbay in Boston which is ridiculous. I'm just trying to get back to the original question that was so terribly derailed and hijacked by density fiends like yourself. Which city offers the best City living.

Or as I stated before.

Now let's listen to Crickets while we wait for you to show me how Hoboken's nightlife compares to this or how their restaraunts stack up or shopping. IF all that mattered in urban living was density then the slums of Bangladesh would have better urban living than New York City. How about you show me something Hoboken has besides density

I'm Waiting

Well you are 5-10 minutes from key parts of Manhattan for one, so access to the best of everything right there

But Hoboken actually has a great restaraunt, lounge and bar scene, honestly, clubs are not the strong suit - btw many of the pics and bars you showed are chains and exist in many cities, was surprised by that. I prefer bars over clubs so to me I may not be the best judge on clubs at this point

It seems to me that clubs are not as big in the North East on the whole so that may be it as well, more bars/lounges/restaurants

[grapico]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Geez, take a chill pill dude. You're acting as if someone just called God a sissy. It's not that serious.

I love it when people get called out, it becomes not that serious anymore and you tell people to take a chill pill. This is called an ad hominem attack. Great way to weasel yourself out of the actual argument and data at hand. Stop making Atlanta to something it isn't by skewing data and this would not happen. Please tell fellow Atlanta posters to stop calling it the NYC of the south. Please do not claim that Atlanta posters do not do this, as I will fill up this entire page with examples if you do.

Thanks.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by grapico

Please run the 2009 census estimate numbers then if you think they are so "innacurate" and somehow misrepresenting Atlanta. They aren't. But you won't run those #'s will you, b/c it will show you the same thing.

Appropriate validation of those locations and population density has been provided. If you feel they are inaccurate, instead of citing 10 year old data (for a location that has seen a 30% increase in population in that 10 year span), then do the following:

1. Go to: demographics | Electronic Data Center

2. On the map, click the drop down list in the top right corner and select Population Density per Square mile

3. If you would like to see the difference between 2000 and 2009, select Population change 2000-2009

At some point, you have to do the heavy lifting yourself to prove your point.

[sk8t]

Originally Posted by grapico

Galounger, good post. Atlanta certainly has similar "amenities" that NYC does, at the same level of quality I am sure. What it doesn't offer is the same "city life" in terms of lifestyle.

When people make them out to be the same lifestyle, that is when things get fuzzy, and people question their motives.

Atlanta would do better promoting itself as what it is. Great amenities, restaurants, night life, more space, and a lower cost of living.

However, if you want "city life" like something like NYC, Chicago, SF...Atlanta is just not going to fare well.

If intown ATL does not offer "city living" then what does it offer? Is it country living?

[grapico]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

Appropriate validation of those locations and population density has been provided. If you feel they are inaccurate, instead of citing 10 year old data (for a location that has seen a 30% increase in population in that 10 year span), then do the following:

1. Go to: demographics | Electronic Data Center

2. On the map, click the drop down list in the top right corner and select Population Density per Square mile

3. If you would like to see the difference between 2000 and 2009, select Population change 2000-2009

At some point, you have to do the heavy lifting yourself to prove your point.

Sure thing.
And I will put your former statistics so they are clear and concise.

I can't find anywhere on that entire map which can hold 10,000 people per square mile over more than 1 square mile radius.

1. Atlanta housing authority redevelopment formerly known as John Hope and University Homes immediately adjancent to Spelman College and Clark-Atlanta University in the West End - 36,492 people per square mile

Your "36,000" figures comes from a total population in that area of 1,200 people LOL

This is what is called cherry picking data.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by grapico

I love it when people get called out, it becomes not that serious anymore and you tell people to take a chill pill.

Oh really? That was written in response to this:

can someone please show me where i can find the code of conduct for CD? there HAS to be some kind of violation for calling Atlanta urban and Queens 'partly urban' in the same breath.

Do we really need a "code of conduct"? Especially when said person completely took certain things out of context.

Originally Posted by grapico

Stop making Atlanta to something it isn't by skewing data and this would not happen.

I am not one to do this. I have a opinion and try my best to present data to accurately reflect this. I occasionally make statements that without further explanation seem out of whack, and will always make an attempt to correct myself or further explain what I meant. I do not pretend to be all knowing or infallible.

Originally Posted by grapico

Please tell fellow Atlanta posters to stop calling it the NYC of the south.

As has been explained before, the "New York of the South" moniker for Atlanta is:

1. Not meant to literally mean that Atlanta is literally New York City in the South.

2. Was coined 110 years ago by a newspaper to describe the similar process in which Atlanta began to annex surrounding municipalities as 1898 consolidation of New York City. Over time, it turned more into a term to describe Atlanta's role in the South similar to that of New York City's role in the North.

This has been stated several times, yet always gets over looked.

Originally Posted by grapico

Please do not claim that Atlanta posters do not do this, as I will fill up this entire page with examples if you do.

Thanks.

I am not responsible for what others post. If I post something that is not understood or incorrect, I will correct myself or explain myself.

Thanks.

[waronxmas]

Originally Posted by grapico

Sure thing.
And I will put your former statistics so they are clear and concise.

I can't find anywhere on that entire map which can hold 10,000 people per square mile over more than 1 square mile radius.

Your "36,000" figures comes from a total population in that area of 1,200 people LOL

This is what is called cherry picking data.

The Population density formula is:

The number of actual people divided by area in which they reside.

The population density formula is not:

Literally how many people live in an area.

Example:

Guttenberg, NJ has a population of 10,601 people and population density of 53,005 people per square mile. Why? Because Guttenberg is 0.2 square miles.

High population densities come from cramming a bunch of people into a small area such as in apartment blocks, highrise condos, etc.

Were you unaware of this?

[grapico]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

The Population density formula is:

The number of actual people divided by area in which they reside.

The population density formula is not:

Literally how many people live in an area.

Example:

Guttenberg, NJ has a population of 10,601 people and population density of 53,005 people per square mile. Why? Because Guttenberg is 0.2 square miles.

High population densities come from cramming a bunch of people into a small area such as in apartment blocks, highrise condos, etc.

Were you unaware of this?

I rest my case then, you purposely misled the Atlanta density by not including the square miles and population represented. Please include the square miles or population set to get the data. You know how to do it, and that site you gave gave the people in that radius, but you purposely left them out to fit your agenda.

If I wanted the square miles I just divide the numbers back, given I had to do "my own work" as you said.

So given that I found the population of your misleading data.
I come up with your 36,492.8 people per square mile figure with only 1259 people equals this data only representing a .034 square mile radius. Highly relevant area, right?

PS that Guttenberg data, not sure why you chose it, is almost 7x larger area than your largest density Atlanta data set...

So which is it, is your Guttenberg data irrelevant? Or is all of your Atlanta data irrelevant. Checkmate.

[sk8t]

Originally Posted by grapico

I rest my case then, you purposely misled the Atlanta density by not including the square miles and population represented. Please include the square miles or population set to get the data. You know how to do it, and that site you gave gave the people in that radius, but you purposely left them out to fit your agenda.

If I wanted the square miles I just divide the numbers back, given I had to do "my own work" as you said.

So given that I found the population of your misleading data.
I come up with your 36,492.8 people per square mile figure with only 1259 people equals this data only representing a .034 square mile radius. Highly relevant area, right?

PS that Guttenberg data, not sure why you chose it, is almost 7x larger area than your largest Atlanta data set...

So which is it, is your Guttenberg data irrelevant? Or is all of your Atlanta data irrelevant. Checkmate.

How is the square mile population different from the population? There has to be that many people in a square mile for it to be x amount per square mile right?