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.
The summer in Atlanta isn't bad, it isn't that much different from DC or something. The lack of summer in SF? That is bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas
I lived in Southeast Asia for three years. I didn't know what hot was until going there.
I'm just someone who doesn't enjoy the heat. It's unusual for me to be in a great mood during the summertime. Honestly, the humidity in both Atlanta and Houston would be much more tolerable, if it weren't for the bugs.
Atleast spring in Atlanta is beautiful with mild weather.
If I get what he's saying here, it is that due to the Olympics and the construction of Centennial Olympic Park, urban renewal indeed has gone to another level here. The area where the park is was an old, industrial warehouse and parking lot filled area with no life to it at all. Without the park, that area of the city would have probably languished for years. Now, we have a new public living room lined on all sides by new development that shows no sign of abating. It has created new districts and infill that very likey may have never happened.
As far as the airport goes, there is a reason it is here and nowhere else in the Southeast. City fathers pushed hard to get us on the first airmail routes. Birmingham just wasn't interested, even though they were approached by the Feds. Shortly after, Eastern and Delta made this the focus city - and later hub - of their route systems.
And while your 20% O&D figure is a little low, we do have more visitors than Dallas and are a much larger convention and meetings city than they are. No matter how you desire to slice it, the airport IS here, as are Delta's world HQ's. The entire region has benefited greatly from having it here.
I agree it is a benefit, but the reason it is the busiest airport in the world is a majority based on logistics and free air space and much less based on end destination travelers to Atlanta
Regardless having a large airport is beneficial but logistics play a far more significant role; more two two-thirds of people using ATL never leave security though it most definately is a large economic engine to the area
I agree it is a benefit, but the reason it is the busiest airport in the world is a majority based on logistics and free air space and much less based on end destination travelers to Atlanta
Regardless having a large airport is beneficial but logistics play a far more significant role; more two two-thirds of people using ATL never leave security though it most definately is a large economic engine to the area
I'll still take it. Whatever percent of 90,000,000+ that use the airport actually begin and end their trips here, it is still a very respectable number that beats out several of our larger peers.
I refuse to let the one thing we have that nobody else can claim to be minimalized, no matter how you attempt to do so.
Why not? Orlando is another heavily suburban southern city, very young, huge tourist destination, good nightlife, great shopping centers... Why not?
You, like many others over here, seem to think that metro area population is the key basis supporting a good comparison. Population, however, is a pretty irrelevant statistic when it does not result in a more vibrant urban core but merely produces additional suburban sprawl, as is the case with Atlanta. In terms of urban structure and character Atlanta has far more in common with Orlando than with San Francisco. It just has more sprawl.Do you disagree?
Very
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
Let me remind you that Orlando is the number one tourist destination in the country. That alone puts in on the map. It also has terrific shopping facilities (the Mall at the Millenia is hands down the most spectacular shopping mall I have ever seen and I've seen a lot of shopping malls), good nightlife, and is one of the top conference centers in the country.
At the end of the day I would tend to agree that Atlanta probably has more to offer but the comparison is not as off base as someone tried to suggest. The only fundamental difference i see between them is that Atlanta has 20 miles of extra suburban sprawl. And yeah sure Atlanta has more skyscrapers but that is hradly something that makes a city superior or more vibrant.
LOFL I'm a broken record now.
Greater Orlando 4,012 sq. mi has 2,134,411
Atlanta 5 core counties less than 1,800 sq mi has more than 3,000,000.
Atlanta has 150% of Orlando population in half the Orlando area,
In 4,012 sq. mi Atlanta has round 4 million or so.
Atlanta in 3,020.88 sq mi has 4,107,750 which is comparable to Boston's 4,674 sq. mi with 4,552,402. It's funny people tend to think that Metro Atlanta population come from it's land size. SF MSA is 4,335,391 in 2,470.5 square miles again denser but remember Atlanta has over 3,000,000 in 1,800 sq mi. Anyways.
Quote:
I agree that Atlanta is an important city. Getting the Olympics was huge and contributed to its international recognizability. Having said that, most of the things you listed are attributes that have little to do with urban character and experience day to day. The fact that you have CNN and Coca Cola does not affect your life in any way (unless you happen to work there). The "outside of that" part that you identified above is not just one factor in the mix, but is what really defines a city. Comparing cities without regard to it is like judging a beauty contest without looking at women's faces.
Another thing Atlanta has been a major US city since the turn of last century, a historical rail town, the city has a significant role in the civil war, hosted a World fair in 1895, was the headquarters to many civil right organization during civil rights movement. Mean while Greater Orlando was less than 500,000 in 1971 when Disney world came.
I'm Glad we are talking about culture I give the edge to San Francisco historically it has been bigger than Atlanta. but not being on SF tier, but rather Orlando? ) I don't see the comparison to Orlando historically and Cultural Atlanta is much more akin to the SF than Orlando. As you stated Orlando is young but however Atlanta is not, Seriously Atlanta had more people in it's MSA in 1900 than Orlando did in 1960. In 1910 Orlando city had 3,894, Atlanta had 154,839 in 25.7 sq mi, San Francisco city had 416,912 and 46.5. sq mi. Then after San Francisco started to boom.
And I'm confuse one your talking about malls, next your telling us what really defines a city?
IN terms of urban structure and character, Atlanta's founders never planed Atlanta to become a major city, the city is a reaction to rail road, Atlanta's core was develop during the street car era, As result Atlanta has the most narrow streets of any major sunbelt city and one few Major US cities that doesn't have a grid. Most Atlanta intown neighborhoods, urban structure were built between 1870 to 1945. Most the common architecture in Atlanta are Victorian, Queen Ann and Bungalow. To understand this you need to go though Intown Atlanta neighborhoods: Inman park, Historic midtown, Sweet Auburn. Old Fourth ward, Grant Park. Castleberry Hill, Cabbagetown, Virginia-Highland and etc. There's a difference between Intown Atlanta, and Atlanta suburbs.
What about New Orleans... San Antonio... Savannah... Charleston...
Or do you only include Dallas and Houston in other major cities?
I think he means major major, and he would be right. I'm not sure about cities like Charlotte or Miami, but, while Houston and Dallas have narrow roads here and there, in their historic neighborhoods, it's not on the same scale as Atlanta.
I think he means major major, and he would be right. I'm not sure about cities like Charlotte or Miami, but, while Houston and Dallas have narrow roads here and there, in their historic neighborhoods, it's not on the same scale as Atlanta.
Yes you could throw Miami/Charlotte in there as well but surely if Charlotte is, New Orleans and San Antonio must be also. There are definitely a lot of 1 way streets and such in Atlanta.
The pollen during springtime is easily the worst thing about Atlanta, and is far worse than the summer heat and humidity people claim is unbearable (even though thanks to the trees and elevation isn't anywhere near as bad as most places in the South).
I know that's what you say, but for someone like myself who is accustomed to totally comfortable, sunny summer days with zero rain or wetness for months on end, its like another world when I come to Atlanta and face the infernal humidity and heat--that is the ONE thing about Atlanta that puts me off, the summer weather.
Apart from that, I love the place. Honestly. Sure much of that may have to do with the fact that a ton of my childhood friends have relocated to Atlanta over the years and they remain very close to each other and we always have get togethers in the ATL, but I also like the food, the homes, the people are just nice as hell, etc.
What about New Orleans... San Antonio... Savannah... Charleston...
Charleston, Charleston, Are cities, but not major cities
San Antonio and New Orleans have much wider main roads and they are also more grided than Atlanta. I was just pointing out the role of the historic street car layout in Atlanta how they design their routes. Many cities that had a large street cars network were develop heavily before The street car era. If they were plan they had wider streets, Cities that develop after the street car, develop in the car age, also have wider street.
I know that's what you say, but for someone like myself who is accustomed to totally comfortable, sunny summer days with zero rain or wetness for months on end, its like another world when I come to Atlanta and face the infernal humidity and heat--that is the ONE thing about Atlanta that puts me off, the summer weather.
Thank you. Anytime someone mentions something about the summer heat in Atlanta, the point always has to be brought up that there are other cities that get hotter, as if that magically makes summers in North Georgia nonexistent. No.
I don't care about the heat in Bogalusa, Mississippi. We're talking about Atlanta, and it DOES get hot in Atlanta.
Even when I lived there, and would make a comment about the hot weather, people who knew me would ask "aren't you from Houston?". "Yes, I am. So what? It's hot!"
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.
) I don't see the comparison to Orlando historically and Cultural Atlanta is much more akin to the SF than Orlando. As you stated Orlando is young but however Atlanta is not, Seriously Atlanta had more people in it's MSA in 1900 than Orlando did in 1960. In 1910 Orlando city had 3,894, Atlanta had 154,839 in 25.7 sq mi, San Francisco city had 416,912 and 46.5. sq mi. Then after San Francisco started to boom.
