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 just find Atlanta underwhelming for its size. Cool city, but not a city I strive to visit or anything. Like I said, smaller cities like Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis etc offer much more for me personally and I can get by in a city like KC or StL without missing much compared to ATL.
I can certainly understand your sentiment here due to the way Atlanta developed historically. A lot of people judge a city by its downtown and downtown Atlanta is such a mixed bag. Many tourists are likely to remain in the Pemberton Park (Centennial Olympic Park, GA Aquarium, World of Coke) area or the stretch of Peachtree Street where most of the larger hotels are concentrated; most aren't aware of the historic Fairlie-Poplar district (the original downtown) since it doesn't really have destinations catering to the evening crowd. Much of this will change (hopefully) with the redevelopment of Underground and south downtown with the addition of solid retail, restaurants, and apartments.
The second issue is that Atlanta's core neighborhoods tend not to blend in seamlessly with downtown or each other (although several are MARTA-accessible) and you'd have to know about them before visiting in order to know where to go; unfortunately, that makes them a bit out of the way for visitors. Although they aren't as urban as the core neighborhoods of Northern cities, they have similar vibes and are vibrant and charming in their own right.
"One can talk about the traffic and sprawl of Atlanta all they want but how would Kansas City be able to handle a population growth of around an additional 4 million residents in the span of 28 years (like Atlanta 1990-present)? We will likely never know"
This really puts things in perspective. It's mind boggling how much Atlanta has grown in such a short period of time. KC was actually a larger metro than Atlanta as recent as the 1950's or 1960's and Atlanta was not all that much larger as recent as the 80's and 90's. Today, Atlanta is in a totally different built environment tier than KC. Atlanta make KC look like a small town. In some ways it makes DC seem small.
I can't imagine living in a city and seeing that much change in such a short amount of time.
Economic growth is a obviously a necessity for a city’s health, but it definitely has its downside when it comes too fast as witnessed in Atlanta and cities with similar growth rates like DFW and Houston. We always hear about traffic and sprawl, but how does a metro area appropriately handle influxes of a million new residents per decade? I saw an article recently in the AJC newspaper that reported metro ATL added almost 80,000 new residents in 2016 alone. That’s mind boggling to me.
I’ve attempted to stay neutral on Kansas City and St Louis due to I do not know much about those places. I’ve always had respect for both as solid Midwestern bedrock cities.
I really like the architecture in the core of KC. The city is on my list of places to visit. Looking forward to trying some of that famed BBQ while there.
I’ll probably make a Chicago vs Atlanta thread soon, I wouldn’t say by a landslide there unless you prioritize urbanity or efficient public transit. Otherwise, they are both regional hub cities with much of the same thing and attracting the same events imo. Chicago just being like 30% larger.
Comparing the third largest city and metro to the ninth largest metro is NOT the Atlanta homer hill you want to die on here on C-D. I actually like Atlanta better as a place to live but it pales in comparison to Chicago in terms of amenities, especially since Chicago has been a much larger city and more established than Atlanta, for a longer period of time. ATL didn’t really start becoming g what it is until the 1950s and 60s.
And the North Carolina cities (fast growing in the Piedmont over the past 30-40 years like Atlanta) would have been a better comparison than Missouri. And Smyrna/Vinings comes considered to be far out by urbanphiles in ATL. It wouldn’t be comparable to an inner core Chicago neighborhood at all, unless you’re trying to compare it to Wrigleyville (because of the baseball stadium in cumberland area) and that would be laughable.
Last edited by biscuit_head; 06-28-2018 at 06:19 PM..
Comparing the third largest city and metro to the ninth largest metro is NOT the Atlanta homer hill you want to die on here on C-D. I actually like Atlanta better as a place to live but it pales in comparison to Chicago in terms of amenities, especially since Chicago has been a much larger city and more established.
And the North Carolina cities (fast growing in the Piedmont over the past 30-40 years like Atlanta) would have been a better comparison than Missouri. And Smyrna/Vinings comes considered to be far out by urbanphiles in ATL. It wouldn’t be comparable to an inner core Chicago neighborhood at all, unless you’re trying to compare it to Wrigleyville (because of the baseball stadium in cumberland area) and that would be laughable.
You are always trying construe my post in most uncharitable manner, Chicago is ahead of Atlanta quantitatively. But lots of the things to do there you can find here in abundance as well. It’s just a different car-centric environment they are couched in that makes the huge difference in street-level perception.
The poster was trying to illustrate the difference between Atlanta and MO cities by pointing to differences between Atlanta and Chicago, but that gap isn’t nearly as big, as a Atl metro functions as regional hub.
This is literally like someone from NY area (my actual home town lol) saying Chicago doesn’t hold a candle to it because it almost doubles it in size, that doesn’t capture all nuance involved in making such a comparison. Sure, NY is much bigger, but most of the things you can find there you can find in the CHI based on its size alone.
There are size thresholds to consider when making these comparisons.
I saw what happened to Houston in a long running “vs” thread with Chicago. Not pretty at all.
I don’t understand why? I bet if we insert SF or DC in those slots people here automatically become interested in it, that’s just bias towards big sunbelt cities. If you are 5-6 million urban metro you get a pass when competing with the big 3 it seems.
"One can talk about the traffic and sprawl of Atlanta all they want but how would Kansas City be able to handle a population growth of around an additional 4 million residents in the span of 28 years (like Atlanta 1990-present)? We will likely never know"
This really puts things in perspective. It's mind boggling how much Atlanta has grown in such a short period of time. KC was actually a larger metro than Atlanta as recent as the 1950's or 1960's and Atlanta was not all that much larger as recent as the 80's and 90's. Today, Atlanta is in a totally different built environment tier than KC. Atlanta make KC look like a small town. In some ways it makes DC seem small.
I can't imagine living in a city and seeing that much change in such a short amount of time.
Great points and so accurate.
I suppose the few cities that could relate to Atlanta's massive, explosive growth in such a short period of time here in recent times, are Dallas/Ft Worth, Houston, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.
Atlanta has seen such explosive growth that growing pains are happening right before our eyes and it is to be expected--I tend to forget how fast Atlanta has grown.
It's especially remarkable--and unbelievable--to read that the estimated metro Atlanta population by 2040 will be approx 8.5 million, putting it 6th largest in the US. Wow.
You are always trying construe my post in most uncharitable manner, Chicago is ahead of Atlanta quantitatively. But lots of the things to do there you can find here in abundance as well. It’s just a different car-centric environment they are couched in that makes the huge difference in street-level perception.
LMFAO...Okay, T.I., I used to live in Atlanta for a decade and have defended its honor when snotty folks from the coasts deride it, but trust and believe, Atlanta’s arms are too short to box with Chicago’s from a qualitative standpoint as well. And that’s even after seeing the vast improvements that ATL has made to attract tourists over the last decade or so and making the core area more attractive to residents and tourists since the 1990s/2000s or so. It has nothing to do with the city being car centric vs. the more traditionally urban footprint of Chicago (I certainly would not compare Atlanta to Los Angelesnin terms of amenities neither, and they’re both car-centric) . Hell, Chicago has miles of lakefront with beaches. Atlanta doesn’t have that. Chicago has far more museums, a more robust theater scene, has a better bar scene (I’ll concede and say ATL has better clubs though), and has a far superior dining scene, to name a few things.
But to say a city that’s had a population boom for the last 40 years can go to to toe with a city that’s been far more established for far longer in terms of attractions? No way. Chicago has had about a 100 year headstart on Atlanta (which has mostly grown since 1975 or so) , and even with the influx of people who have moved to Atlanta, it has traditionally been about suburban growth rather than strengthening the core (I’m talking about the Downtown/Midtown/Buckhead spine as well as the East Atlanta neighborhoods along with Decatur) up until about 20 years ago. The Loop/Rover North/North aside packs way more of a punch and has for a longer period of time. Atlanta has changed dynamically over a shorter period of time and is ever evolving a lot more than Chicago,which has improved its core drastically, but had the bones to do so as it has been far more established for a longer period of time as it was a larger city when ATL was a mid-size city on the Piedmont. I’m not singling out ATL, because I’d say the same thing about comparing Houston’s amenities to Chicago’s. It might be the fourth largest city, but it didn’t start growing rapidly until the mid-late 20th century like ATL did, and is a reflection of those times.
Hey, I’m trying to help you out and save you some time by not creating a thread comparing the two. It’ll be a bloodbath. You don’t have to agree, and that’s fine, but like I said...this ain’t the hill you want to die on, son. Atlanta may function as a regional hub for the Southeast the way Chicago does for the Midwest, but it’s obvious that it doesn’t have quite the amenities that Chicago has from a qualitiative standpoint, much less a qualitative one. Nor would I expect it to. Trust and believe, I’m not saying ATL is boring or lacking in amenities, but it pales in comparison to Chicago. You mention SF and DC further down, and ATL is definitely a slight drop down from those cities too. It is what it is.
Quote:
This is literally like someone from NY area (my actual home town lol) saying Chicago doesn’t hold a candle to it because it almost doubles it in size, that doesn’t capture all nuance involved in making such a comparison. Sure, NY is much bigger, but most of the things you can find there you can find in the CHI based on its size alone.
There are size thresholds to consider when making these comparisons.
While Chicago holds its own in terms of amenities, it doesn’t hold a candle to NYC to me. But because it grew to be the second largest city at its peak, its civic leaders had the wherewithal to develop the city and create attractions becoming of that status. It also grew and boomed around the same time as NYC did too, so has a similar ethos to it in terms of development, so comparison between those two cities would make a bit more sense due to the times they developed compared to the cities that grew later down in the sunbelt. These things take time, Atlanta is still catching up with developing amenities becoming of a metro of its size. Keep in mind that back in 1980, there were only about 2.5 Million people in the metro area. Very few metro areas have had the boom in population that Atlanta has, and it takes time for cities that endure that type of growth to cultivate and develop the attractions and amenities.
Atlanta is not thinking about either city. Both cities combined still don't come close to Atlanta.
Funny thing is St. Louis doesn't think about Atlanta either. It's a larger city with fun things to do but as far as looking up to a city... no. I don't think the migration patterns show Atlanta as a destination for St. Louis now. Dallas, NYC and Chicago are the places people tend to leave St. Louis for. Atlanta of the 90s was a different story.
There isn't too much missing in St. Louis to make me say I miss living in Chicago even though Chicago smashes the daylights out of St. Louis. I usually describe St. Louis as a small big city. I don't see myself being comfortable in a smaller city. Memphis was too small. Charlotte at the time was too small. Most of my culture fix and foodie and shopping desires can be accommodated in St. Louis or Cleveland or a Baltimore type place. It's not lacking a whole lot. Living in a neighborhood based city, that is well established, with a reasonable amount of density and walkability helps with my urban living requirements. Just like Atlanta and Kansas City, you get a lot of city for your money. Not everyone is chasing the same dollar. It's just big enough for economic diversity where one can find many options to make money. Once again, it isn't a hustlers paradise like Chicago DC or NYC but it works for the driven types and one can be prosperous and live a good life.
I think many people take these comparisons too far and start writing about things they know nothing about and haven't experienced.
Last edited by mjtinmemphis; 06-28-2018 at 11:25 PM..
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.
