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.
It is kind of silly to even suggest that Baltimore is more urban than Atlanta. It has a denser city proper, but it pales in comparison to the overall size, both population-wise, and physical built environment of Atlanta. It's like trying to claim that Atlanta is more urban than New York City.
This is the dumbest post i've seen on C-D thus far. How can u even allow yourself to type such foolishness?? did u see that picture that billiam post a couple of pages back?? Atlanta is in no way, shape, or form more urban than baltimore. Are really comparing this Google Maps to this Google Maps ??
I don't even have to argue which is more urban. To me it is clearly Atlanta... However I was responding to somebody that said Atlanta looks like a suburb compared to B-more... Do you agree? What suburb in Baltimore looks like the pictures of Atlanta I posted? Feel free to just take one neighborhood.
Atlanta does look like a suburb compared to Baltimore...what kinda drugs are they selling in ATL. U ATLiens are on some other sh*t. Google Maps looks << downtown ATL is even less urdan than Google Maps << a suburb of Baltimore
First of all, when you say city, aren't you really incorporating the entire metro area into the discussion, for that is what everyone does with Atlanta. St. Louis' suburbs are every bit as auto-centric as any other place. The same goes for Baltimore. Don't fool yourself.
If you take the center city, some places are on grids, others are not. Atlanta has some areas that are on grid, whereas others are not. Boston isn't on a grid, but no one claims that it isn't urban. Urban has to do with built environment and population. Atlanta is every bit as urban and more than a place like Baltimore. Seriously, Baltimore feels like a mid-sized city when I'm traveling through. It's closer to Jacksonville or Birmingham in developed-land size than Atlanta. It's skyline is also closer to those cities than Atlanta.
...just stop
the most urban area in ATL is "Baltimore Row" google it if u dont know what it is. why do u insist on saying ATL is more urban than Baltimore: One of the most urban cities in the country?? that doesnt make any sense at all.
While the Atlanta metro is larger, Baltimore to me as a city feels larger
It is 637K over 81 sq miles; Atlanta is 541K over 132 sq miles
Also while the Atlanta metro is larger the combined Urbanized Area of Baltimore/DC is larger and continuous - To me the area around Baltimore feels larger and based on developed area actually is
Baltimore/DC developed/urbanized area 6.3 million
Atlanta Developed/Urbanized Area 4.2 million
Now this is not to say Atlanta does not have urban areas or is not large, but mutliple skylines do not make a place feel more urban, the street level does, of which both have a fair amount of with Baltimore having more and a little more cohesive, does this make one better, no, to some, yes, to others, no but it is what it is and to claim Atlanta more urban or more developed to me is not accurate. If the question is more tall buildings than Yes Atlanta does have significantly more, if that makes it more urban than just every city in America is more urban than DC...
kidphilly i see what u were saying, but Baltimore does NOT need DC's help for ANYTHING...Baltimore is a stand-alone city.
Atlanta extends for miles and miles, far beyond what Baltimore does. It has a larger built-up inprint onto the landscape, far and beyond anything that Baltimore has. That's a fact. That's why it's more urban, as urban is the opposite of rural, and even "suburban" areas are considered "urban", only less dense.
Atlanta's skyline also notes a dynamic built environment, as well as a product of its growth, as well as population. Skyline is a built environment, like any other, so I only place so much emphasis on the built environment in terms of the overall built up area, in terms of square miles. I only mention the skyline, because some people, you apparently, still think that urban equates to turn-of-the-century row houses, as though skyscrapers and other forms of development do not count. Nonsense. Your terminology of what is urban isn't accurate, for it's relational to the type of development, as opposed to the true context of the word, which is a developed environment, consisting of more people than the surrounding countryside. Since Atlanta has a much larger developed area than Baltimore, then it stands to reason that it is more urban, density of certain districts withheld (which play no bearing on anything).
I didn't say anything of DC, and certainly DC is dynamic, given that it is the nation's capital. In this regard, DC is more dynamic than Los Angeles, a metro region nearly three times its size.
I'm speaking of Baltimore. Stop connecting Baltimore with DC, as though it can't stand on its own, which it can't, in comparison to Atlanta. Simply because development between the suburbs of DC and Baltimore connected sometime in the mid to late 90s doesn't mean that they grew as one region throughout most of their history. Furthermore, the connection is a narrow link of development from the masses of the two metro areas. If Columbia, Maryland had never been built as a master-planned town, it's likely that they'd still remain unconnected today, as that city spurred further growth to and from, which enabled the cities to merge. Either that, or they'd have merged much later.
No, I'm not kidding you. Physically, it's about as spread out as Jacksonville, maybe Orlando. Its developed imprint is fairly similar to Orlando, and is a far cry from Atlanta. It's skyline looks about like Jacksonville in size, maybe smaller.
Sure, Baltimore is more dense, of that I don't deny, but you act as though your precious density is the end-all, be-all for characterizing cities.
As I've said, your definition of urban is flawed. If you mean tightly packed, row-houses, etc., then Baltimore, within its center city, is more spread-out than Atlanta's tightly-packed district. However, it's not like Atlanta is lacking dense development, and it's not like metro Atlanta's development is sparse. It's not. As long as it's physically developed, above what you'd classify as rural, then it's urban.
As I've stated, physical-expanse of developed area is one of the components for comparing how urban a region is. The built-up area, in square miles, is a defining characteristic for how large and dynamic a city is. You can argue that such is not the case, but it doesn't make what I'm saying not a fact. While Baltimore is clearly larger than Jacksonville, in a population-sense, it has a physical imprint on the land, outside of density, much closer to a Jacksonville than an Atlanta.
As I've said, density does not necessarily equate to "urban" after a certain population density has been reached. At that point, the definining characteristic for comparing urbanity of regions switches to developed expanse, in square mileage.
You see, it takes a certain amount of development and population growth to take an area from rural to urban. However, once that has been reached, you can't say a place is more urban than another simply because it has more people packed in like sardines than another, as both are now urban. You can't make a place "more urban", as it is already urban. You can make it more dense, but urban isn't exactly a reflection of density, but rather the absence of rural. Hence, any other measures for determining how urban a region is must reflect the expansiveness of the urban area. In such regard, Atlanta is far more urban than Baltimore.
If you want to argue that city proper Baltimore is more dense than Atlanta, then fine. That's a fact. It isn't more urban, however, in terms of the expansiveness of its urban area.
What urban area?? Downtown Atlanta isnt even that urban... LMAO!!
Its still funny to my how people keep bring that mason-dixon foolishness. that was a land dispute between PA&MD nothing to do with north and south. Hell, delaware is right beside MD and is east of the mason dixon line does that make it northern or southern? u people need to get over the whole M-D line this is 2010. nobody (except for a few retards on this site) considers MD the south; geography, culture, weather, or anything else. lastly, Baltimore's culture has not changed, "notherners" didnt invade Baltimore like they did dc... so our culture is authentic and if it does NOT seem southern is because it's NOT southern.
the most urban area in ATL is "Baltimore Row" google it if u dont know what it is. why do u insist on saying ATL is more urban than Baltimore: One of the most urban cities in the country?? that doesnt make any sense at all.
As I've stated, urban is simply the absence of rural. Know your definitions and understand. What you're referring to is density, and of that I will not disagree that Baltimore is more dense. But let's be real, Baltimore is slightly less than half of the size of Atlanta, in metro population and physical layout.
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.
...just stop
