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.
Atlanta became a major city base on the rail road it was the nexus of the southeast, after the civil war the city promoted the idea of the New South, which is the south base on industry. By the decline of heavy industry in first half of last century Atlanta switch up revinted itself with the Sunbelt growth.
Birmingham was founded after the civil war name after Birimingham in the UK because it's history with the industrial revolution, it was nick name Pittsburgh of the south. The city is known as of one battle front during the civil right movement. Birmingham is sorta like a Southern rustbelt city. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/25/60/d4/2...lker-evans.jpg
Raleigh as major city is a lot younger than cities above, but as region the leader had a lot foreight include one of the claim first state universities. And later the research triangle. http://www.capcitytradetech.com/wp-c...1328548977.jpg
Charlotte as major city it's the second youngest in this group become a major city after the sunbelt boom, but as town it's actually one of the oldest during American revolution the town of Charlotte was called a "Hornet" nest. America's first gold rush happen in NC which cause Charlotte to be one of the first minting centers. Later NC laws help Charlotte to be financial hub. https://coinweek.com/wp-content/uplo...01/NG_Gold.gif
I wouldn't put Louisville in the Southeast, but I guess it's more apportate region for it, because not Midwestern either. With that said I don't see how a small section of Louisville equal its more urban than DT/MT/O4W Atlanta, It's not the scale of New Orleans. And how did Birmingham get on the list when Atlanta and Birmingham were like twins until the 50's. And nothing in Miami is more traditional urban Sweet Auburn including "little Havana". Miami basically has denser suburban sprawl style that doesn't making more "urban"
I wouldn't put Louisville in the Southeast, but I guess it's more apportate region for it, because not Midwestern either. With that said I don't see how a small section of Louisville equal its more urban than DT/MT/O4W Atlanta, It's not the scale of New Orleans. And how did Birmingham get on the list when Atlanta and Birmingham were like twins until the 50's. And nothing in Miami is more traditional urban Sweet Auburn including "little Havana". Miami basically has denser suburban sprawl style that doesn't making more "urban"
Downtown, Brickell, Wynwood, Parts of Little Havana, Parts of Little Haiti, and that's not mentioning Miami Beach. Miami feels much more denser and walkable.
Ensley is probably more Urban than any neighborhood in Atlanta outside of DT and MT. All in all, I think Birmingham has more Urban/Dense hoods by comparison. Remember, Birmingham pretty much came together by annexing smaller City Neighborhoods/Streetcar Suburbs, that already had their own developed neighborhoods or commercial areas.
Atlanta's neighborhoods such as VH, Sweet Auburn, Inman Park, and etc. has their pockets of walkability. They're active, healthy, and full of life. They remind me of Birmingham suburbs like Homewood and Mountain Brook.
With that being said, those neighborhoods are significantly different from the Birmingham neighborhoods I'm describing. I'm talking about physical appearance, by comparison, Birmingham's neighborhoods are much more denser, walkable, and the street layouts were planned much better; I'd actually go on to say Birmingham has a bit more "concrete" than Atlanta.
There's probably some other examples scattered across the city that I can't remember right now, but obviously you should've gotten the point. Birmingham's Street Car Suburbs at one point had their own economies, I mean above you posted a pic of one of Ensley's oldest neighborhoods with it Steel Mills in the background.
Atlanta's neighborhoods such as VH, Sweet Auburn, Inman Park, and etc. has their pockets of walkability. They're active, healthy, and full of life. They remind me of Birmingham suburbs like Homewood and Mountain Brook.
With that being said, those neighborhoods are significantly different from the Birmingham neighborhoods I'm describing. I'm talking about physical appearance, by comparison, Birmingham's neighborhoods are much more denser, walkable, and the street layouts were planned much better; I'd actually go on to say Birmingham has a bit more "concrete" than Atlanta.
There's probably some other examples scattered across the city that I can't remember right now, but obviously you should've gotten the point. Birmingham's Street Car Suburbs at one point had their own economies, I mean above you posted a pic of one of Ensley's oldest neighborhoods with it Steel Mills in the background.
I'm trying to figure out what's significantly different between Sweet Auburn and these Birmingham neighborhoods you're touting, and how in the world Sweet Auburn is more like the White flight suburbs of Homewood and Mountain Brook. I could also throw the likes of Castleberry Hill, Edgewood, the West End, etc. in there--which aren't streetcar suburbs like Va-Hi, Inman Park, Grant Park, Druid Hills, etc.
I don't think it even matters at this point because we've had this conversation before and it's just clear you don't know much about Atlanta's historic neighborhoods and simply keep repeating things that aren't true. Birmingham may be underrated for urbanity but this attempt to make it light years more urban than Atlanta is simply an exercise in futility and it's telling that not even Birmingham residents are willing to join you in this exercise.
Atlanta's neighborhoods such as VH, Sweet Auburn, Inman Park, and etc. has their pockets of walkability. They're active, healthy, and full of life. They remind me of Birmingham suburbs like Homewood and Mountain Brook.
With that being said, those neighborhoods are significantly different from the Birmingham neighborhoods I'm describing. I'm talking about physical appearance, by comparison, Birmingham's neighborhoods are much more denser, walkable, and the street layouts were planned much better; I'd actually go on to say Birmingham has a bit more "concrete" than Atlanta.
There's probably some other examples scattered across the city that I can't remember right now, but obviously you should've gotten the point. Birmingham's Street Car Suburbs at one point had their own economies, I mean above you posted a pic of one of Ensley's oldest neighborhoods with it Steel Mills in the background.
The pictures you showed are of run down areas with empty streets and sidewalks. I am not sure how any of these pictures show that Birmingham is more urban than Atlanta.
I'm really confused how these bleak pictures of Birmingham are supposed to be an argument for B'ham being more urban than Atlanta. Hell, I'm confused why anyone would try to argue Birmingham is more urban than Atlanta.
I'm really confused how these bleak pictures of Birmingham are supposed to be an argument for B'ham being more urban than Atlanta. Hell, I'm confused why anyone would try to argue Birmingham is more urban than Atlanta.
He's trying to argue it from a structural perspective but even then he's off. There's no question that functionally, Atlanta is definitely more urban as all of its older commercial districts and streetcar suburbs actually have residents and are vibrant places.
The pictures you showed are of run down areas with empty streets and sidewalks. I am not sure how any of these pictures show that Birmingham is more urban than Atlanta.
Even if it's run down or "empty," it's still more Urban, lol that's the point I made above. Detroit, Cleveland and pretty much most Rust Belt cities have run down areas, they're still Urban regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
He's trying to argue it from a structural perspective but even then he's off. There's no question that functionally, Atlanta is definitely more urban as all of its older commercial districts and streetcar suburbs actually have residents and are vibrant places.
All of Birmingham's older Streetcar Suburbs still have residents. it's not a freaking wasteland, that's probably the most idiotic thing I've read today, no offense. If New York was hit with an apocalyptic gas that literally killed off most of it's residents, the city would still be FAR more Urban than Atlanta. Saying otherwise doesn't make any logical sense lol.
The "main road" in Hoover, which is strictly car-oriented is more vibrant than those Birmingham neighborhoods. But no person who uses any logical sense would base the models of urbanity off of that argument, and assume that Hoover is more Urban.
If those Birmingham neighborhoods were at full capacity, you'd CLEARLY see which were the most urban of the two. Infill Projects seem much more promising in Birmingham than they would in Atlanta because of Birmingham's layout and older buildings.
That "run down" area in Ensley, is also making it's way to being redeveloped. Not to mention, Ensley is miles away from the Core of Birmingham, yet it still has better Urban Bones than most of Atlanta Streetcar Suburbs right outside of Atlanta's Downtown.
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.
