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.
In 1860, DC had 75,000 people. It's streets were still mostly unpaved. New York had 1.2 million already.
That was still considerably larger than Atlanta. The original city of Washington (separate from the District of Columbia) was only about 10 square miles. Atlanta, by contrast, had 9,554 people in 1860 with city limits that were 3.15 square miles in size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Bones
The only reason that DC does not look more like Atlanta is that its metro area absorbed two colonial-era towns (Georgetown and Alexandria) and it had the foresight to construct a more thorough mass-transit system (the Metro), which has helped limit some of the sprawl there.
Most of DC's rowhouse neighborhoods (basically everything north of Florida Avenue) were built out in the early 20th Century. Many of the city's "Wardman" style houses were built in the 1930s.
Of course they can be in the South; just look at Decatur in metro Atlanta. They are typically older commercial centers that have become absorbed into a larger metropolitan area.
See, that's the problem some people have - they have no idea what they're talking about. Atlanta lacks walkable communities? WRONG. Check some of the recent walkability studies that rank Atlanta pretty high in that respect...and you should really see for yourself before making such inaccurate, stereotypical comments.
Atlanta isn't "comparing itself" to anything. A member of city-data started this thread with a valid question. I'm sorry you are so offended by it.
I have to agree, while Atlanta does not have huge amounts of walkable areas or at least large areas of connected walkability, to say it has none is just stupid. DC certainly has a lot more, and most of its city neighborhoods seem to be at least relatively walkable, but I think the comparison is valid. However, inside the core DC reminds me a lot more of NYC than ATL.
You can just look at their histories and be able answer this question.
DC's metro area grew up alongside Atlanta. Both cities expanded almost entirely in the twentieth century.
In 1860, DC had 75,000 people. It's streets were still mostly unpaved. New York had 1.2 million already.
Until recently, DC was unquestionably "Southern." Like Atlanta, DC enforced legal segregation until the 1960's (that's only fifty years ago). Slavery existed in DC until 1865, just like Atlanta. This matters because DC's demographics still reflect this past. There's a reason why DC became known as the Chocolate City. The demographics of DC are nearly indistinguishable from Atlanta's. DC has never been the multi-ethnic city that New York has been.
The only reason that DC does not look more like Atlanta is that its metro area absorbed two colonial-era towns (Georgetown and Alexandria) and it had the foresight to construct a more thorough mass-transit system (the Metro), which has helped limit some of the sprawl there.
I grant you that DC is increasingly becoming more like New York.
DC had its share of multiethnic neighborhoods in the past in the context of European immigrants and Jewish residents for quite a long while until as recent as the 1960s (which is pretty "recent" as well), more so than ATL and most cities down in the South except maybe New Orleans but definitely not as significant as New York I agree with that premise.
Both DC and ATL as well as New York do have the most ethnically, culturally, and socio-economically diverse Black populations in the country, that's definitely something all three cities and their metro areas share in common.
That was still considerably larger than Atlanta. The original city of Washington (separate from the District of Columbia) was only about 10 square miles. Atlanta, by contrast, had 9,554 people in 1860 with city limits that were 3.15 square miles in size.
Most of DC's rowhouse neighborhoods (basically everything north of Florida Avenue) were built out in the early 20th Century. Many of the city's "Wardman" style houses were built in the 1930s.
You are right. Atlanta was even smaller than DC in 1860. Nevertheless, both Atlanta and DC largely developed after the Civil War, especially during the twentieth century.
And yes, you are correct to point out that DC developed its own architectural quirks.
DC had its share of multiethnic neighborhoods in the past in the context of European immigrants and Jewish residents for quite a long while until as recent as the 1960s (which is pretty "recent" as well), more so than ATL and most cities down in the South except maybe New Orleans but definitely not as significant as New York I agree with that premise.
Both DC and ATL as well as New York do have the most ethnically, culturally, and socio-economically diverse Black populations in the country, that's definitely something all three cities and their metro areas share in common.
Yes, DC attracted more immigrants than Atlanta during the late 19th century and early 20th. Atlanta had its fair share of immigrants, though, too. Nearly all American cities received a significant influx of immigrants during the period.
DC had its share of multiethnic neighborhoods in the past in the context of European immigrants and Jewish residents for quite a long while until as recent as the 1960s (which is pretty "recent" as well), more so than ATL and most cities down in the South except maybe New Orleans but definitely not as significant as New York I agree with that premise.
DC wasn't very different from Atlanta in this regard. Atlanta's Jewish community dates back possibly even longer than Washington's and the city even elected a Jewish mayor in the 1970s. There were Irish Catholics in the South, but not obviously as many as there were in Northern cities. Margaret Mitchell, for example, was the product of an Irish Catholic family.
Quote:
Mitchell’s mother’s family was Irish Catholic. Her great-grandfather Phillip Fitzgerald came to America from Ireland and eventually settled on a plantation near Jonesboro in Fayette County. (This portion of the county now lies in Clayton County.)
There were also Irish Catholic enclaves in other Southern cities.
Quote:
Margaret Skinner grew up in the Irish district of Memphis, has written two fine novels, Old Jim Canaan (1990) and Molly Flanagan and the Holy Ghost (1995), a 1950s southern coming of age story full of the ordinary moral and theological perspectives of a Catholic adolescent.
What Southern cities generally have in common is that late 19th Century immigrants never had a sufficiently large presence to build political machines. This was true in Baltimore as well.
Quote:
Unlike many East Coast port cities, and despite its Catholic heritage, Baltimore did not become an Irish city in the way Boston or New York did. By 1870, the Irish made up only 6 percent of Baltimore's population, while 14 percent of Philadelphia's population was Irish.
I guess the ultimate point is that DC and ATL are not very different in this sense. Neither city was a magnet for late 19th Century European immigration, and if DC (or Richmond for that matter) best Atlanta here, it is only marginally so.
Yes, DC attracted more immigrants than Atlanta during the late 19th century and early 20th. Atlanta had its fair share of immigrants, though, too. Nearly all American cities received a significant influx of immigrants during the period.
DC didn't attract many immigrants either.
Quote:
Washington, like many other Southern cities, just never had a significant Italian-American population—probably because it lacked the industrial base to lure immigrants in from Sicily and southern Italy. At the turn of the century, the Mafia only gained a toehold in cities with thriving Italian neighborhoods: New York, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston, plus up-and-coming Miami and Providence. “You see this pattern throughout, with no exceptions,” says David Critchley, author of The Origin of Organized Crime in America: The New York City Mafia, 1891-1931.
Washington never developed a food identity. When, early in the 20th century, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York and many of the older cities were receiving from Europe a working class to populate their industries, Washington had no industry. People didn’t come in large numbers and open the little bakeries and food stores based on immigrant traditions.
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.
