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.
You have not provided any proof that someone has said this so until you do this will just be a troll/bash thread for your own ego. Post the link to this claims you make against "Atlanta posters".
Someone else did it for me, go read back through and follow the links
It is pretty simple Supply and Demand - DC has many job opps just not present in other areas and many are realted to the Gov't thus driving demand on a different continuum. There is no choice for some who go or must transfer there. Atlanta along with some other rapidly developing areas offer great amentities with growth, cheaper housing/COL and jobs. DC is is a true anomaly in the rapidly growing larger metros...
SF or a Boston or a NYC are expensive because of their maturity and compression
But agree DC is the outlier in this context
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
Simple market economics.
I think it has to more to do with inflated or perceived value more then anything. The government forcing people to live there for certain jobs is one way the cost are inflated, and I guess the novelty of living in the capital with all the museums and monuments is the other. As far a amenities goes and everyday living for people in the private sector aside for public transit there is not much more that DC offers over other large sunbelt cities outside LA. You could say being in the "boshwosh" corridor is worth the price but it is probably cheaper to fly from ATL to Philly or NYC then to drive up there.
I don't understand why some people are so upset to see their city lose to another in a certain context. Why can't people just accept their city for what it is and stop pretending about what it's not? It's ridiculous.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 11-21-2010 at 12:02 PM..
I don't understand why some people are so upset to see their city lose to another in a certain context. Why can't people just accept their city for what it is and stop pretending about what it's not? It's ridiculous.
I don't understand why people feel the need to constantly bring up a cities "inaquities" and "failures" constantly and create bash threads like this. Some people get all their security and pride from their location and have to bash others to feel good, that or they have no lives.
Atlanta has a larger urbanized area and is a larger metro.
UA:
Atlanta 3.5 million San Francisco 3.2 million
MSA:
Atlanta 5.5 million San Francisco 4.3 million
However, San Franciso is more densely populated.
UA: Atlanta 1,800/ sq mile San Francisco 6,100/ sq mile
Metro: Atlanta 630/ sq mile San Francisco 1100/ sq mile
As far as amennities I do not see how they are that much different and
I don't think either one has an advantage over the other as far as amenities.
I would say Atlanta has a larger UA and San Franciso has a much more densely populated core.
Note:
In the not to distant future the CSA known as the Bay Area may in fact become the MSA and it will indeed be more urban that Atlanta currently. As for Atlanta... the city of Atlanta has grown more in the last 8 years than the past 70 years combined as the suburbs continue to become more urban. Basically the urbanized areas of SF will expand and Atlanta's will get more dense.
I have to say... it's ironic how urban is being tossed around on this site w/o much parameters for the definition... which it needs. When usually urban is often used as an euphemism for black city culture or has that connotation... which is clearly a specialty of Atlanta.
Last edited by theATLien; 11-21-2010 at 03:30 PM..
Honestly, I don't think just because you have a bigger population does not necessarily mean you are more urban. There is more to urbanity than just having a larger population. For example,, Houston is larger than DC but DC /SF much more urban mostly because it's core is more urban than anything in Houston. DC fits the criteria more of what it means to urban under BigCityDreamer's definition.
San Francisco is more urban, but I would prefer to live in Atlanta. I honestly think Atlanta is more diverse and more tolerant (yes tolerant). SF is intolerant to anybody who isn't a radical leftist.
Honestly, I don't think just because you have a bigger population does not necessarily mean you are more urban. There is more to urbanity than just having a larger population. For example,, Houston is larger than DC but DC /SF much more urban mostly because it's core is more urban than anything in Houston. DC fits the criteria more of what it means to urban under BigCityDreamer's definition.
I do not think population density necessarily means more urban either. If that's the case Peachtree st. or Hoboken is more urban than San Francisco cause they are more dense.
I think it's a combination of population density, size of developed land, population, and lifestyle.
As far as the comparison
San Francisco has a much larger density, Atlanta has a larger population and a larger urbanized area, and I think they both offer a comparable urban experience. As I stated earlier I do not think either one has an advantage over the other as far as amenities.
Nevertheless it is true the San Francisco is more densely populated than Atlanta... if that's the question.
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.
