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 African American culture is pretty American and probably have roots in the deep south going back to the founding of the USA. The Latin culturs in Miami are likely recent immigrants in addition, the Latin population comes from a diverse areas relative to other areas which can be enclaves for specific latinos (Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, etc. can sometimes make up an overwhelming amount of latinos in some area). Miami is a mix of Portuguese and Spanish speaking peoples from countries where they are primarily from European descent (Brazil, Argentina, etc.) , primarily African descent (Haiti, Dominican Republic, Northern Brazil), primarily Native American descent(Mexico, central america, etc.).
Atlanta feels less diverse with it's long lineage of English speaking Deep South African-Americans. It feels fairly black and there does seem to have a significant African immigrant population, but I dont necessarily view Atlanta being more black as being more diverse as opposed to viewing it as a Southern City where African Americans have strong roots and that's pretty American to me.
Metro Atlanta has a much larger Asian population than Miami, and it shows.
People are confusing density with size. When you combine Atlanta's MSA in each direction and compare it to Miami (N to S), there's no way either area feels larger.
I will say that I continue to notice more growth in metro Atlanta as well.
I understand what you're getting at and I agree with most of it. Essentially what you're saying is that Atlanta contains the bulk of its population in a smaller footprint and that the outer fringes that consume vast swaths of land but hold scarce populations of people drag down the overall density of the area. I understand. However you have to realize that it doesn't negate the broader point the other posters were making. It's not that Miami is denser than Atlanta, it's that systematically it must be built denser than Atlanta. That's a circumstance of its geography. For that reason, you have the absolute highest peak density in Southeast Florida topping out at 79,130 people per square mile (Census Tract #67.11). Whereas in Atlanta it is 23,945 people per square mile (Census Tract #11). Miami-Dade has a couple more over 60,000 people per square mile, several over both 30,000 people per square mile and 40,000 people per square mile. That's increasingly becoming a likelihood for tightly built areas along the coast in South Florida. It's not a density threshold that Atlanta has a match for as of right now and without a larger scale street-grid network, it's possible that Atlanta will have a very tough time developing contiguous tracts of density at that threshold. In the U.S. context: the one thing the street-grid does is that it makes it so that the urban form is free flowing from one area onto the next without the impediments that restrict consistent density development. It gives things a more uniform configuration you could say.
The one thing I noticed both in actual life the last time I was in Atlanta as well as on the map that I linked you to is that Atlanta's density has to be concentrated in nodes and that the density level falls off a good deal when you begin moving away from it in nearly any direction. With the major exception being Midtown where there are six or seven high density census tracts concentrated in one area (high density in this sense meaning over 10,000 people per square mile) and then a big drop off from that to places all around that are in the 5,000s, or 4,000s, or 3,000s, or 2,000s. Much of Atlanta is sort of like a "density island" so to speak. Even in the suburbs, you have a patchwork of good density and then it just falls rapidly as soon as you move away from it in seemingly any direction. Without using any names because it isn't a part of this thread but another major city in the South has a clustering of nine tracts over 10,000 people per square mile and then two or three tacts with 8,000 or 9,000 people per square mile linking it to another clustering of like seven tracts with over 10,000 people per square mile and then two or three tracts with 6,000, or 7,000, or 8,000 people per square mile linking it to another clustering of six tracts above 10,000 people per square mile, so on and so forth. You're able to transition from one area to the next without the massive or noticeable drop off in population density.
I think that's the point the other posters are trying to make in this thread. They're just trying to illustrate the difference in the density level within the urban format of these cities. It isn't to takeaway from Atlanta's urban form but to point out the differences between the two cities.
Regarding the side discussion about trees and large lot sizes, I actually don't have any issues with Atlanta's style on either. The trees keep the air cleaner and give Atlanta a nice aesthetic environment. The lot sizes, even in the core of the city are alright with me. Typically I fashion high density but I am known to make exceptions when something works well in its setting. In this case, I think some of the older homes and neighborhoods in Atlanta's core fit that. Lots of nice homes with a good amount of area, lots of trees, for the type of city that Atlanta's built and the type of topography in its proximity, I'd say the look works for it. South Florida itself has strong and consistent tree coverage all throughout as well, albeit the forestation isn't as thickly concentrated in South Florida as Greater Atlanta, but still a large amount though.
I have to come back, because your only getting partly of what i'm saying. but overall it's very off of what I'm saying.
Miami is denser than Atlanta, I'm not debating, never was.
I was saying a lot of people think when they look at the urban area or MSA density they go oh Atlanta isn't that dense. When actually those numbers are misleading if you don't understand what they measuring. So what end up happening is some end up thinking Atlanta is only big because it sprawls. Like Atlanta is only bigger than metros like Boston 4,500 sq mi, Seattle 5,800 sq mi, Pittsburgh 5,700 sq mi, Cleveland 3,979 sq mi etc because Atlanta "sprawls" 8,400 sq mi,
When no only 9 metros, NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, DC, Miami, Philly, SF, metros are actually denser than Atlanta if Atlanta had same metro sq mi Size. Boston for example is 4.9 million in 4,500 sq mi but Atlanta would have over 5.5 million in that area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence
It has plenty do with it. You yourself admitted that Atlanta is great at saving its trees. You will find countless structures on larger lots surrounded by old growth forest (as in trees that have never been touched). In Miami and most Sunbelt cities, that forest would be razed to make room for another building. This isn't the only reason Atlanta has such an impressive canopy, but it does make a big difference. If it were built like Miami it wouldn't look nearly as green because there wouldn't be enough room for all of those trees.
Sometimes these lots aren't even taken up by many trees but instead it's these huge front yards which, again, are far from common in South Florida. Does all of Atlanta look like this? No, but it is more typical than most other places.
Again there are only 9 metros in the country with higher population than Atlanta under 4,000 to 5,000 sq mi. Atlanta being forest doesn't change that. So it's like Atlanta "forest" is being used in low density argument, when actually metro Atlanta core region is one most densely population regions of the country regardless of it.
"In Miami and most Sunbelt cities, that forest would be razed to make room for another building. This isn't the only reason Atlanta has such an impressive canopy" so on contrary is my point Metro Atlanta core region is denser than all Sunbelt cities besides 4, even with the trees.
What happening metro Atlanta just incorporate trees in urban and suburban areas more. It's not just large yard neighborhoods, in most cities smaller small yards neighborhoods wouldn't have trees but in metro Atlanta they're still there.
I put this way in these Miami neighborhoods only a few trees. Miami
Heck this a new urbanism project just built in the 2000's. is greener than most Miami neighborhoods. Atlanta
basically it's a cultural thing largely in the piedmont region it's not just large lots with a lot of trees even small and medium home lots neighborhoods are greener in Atlanta than most of country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frustratedintelligence
Then do we not have to consider that for every city? Atlanta is not the place that gets far less dense on the outskirts.
Yes but not to degree Atlanta does, The point you have understand what the urbanized area is measuring a lot use inaccurately as radius density, when not radius density.
This may contradict my post in another thread, but there's a difference between visually looking larger and feeling larger. Maybe because I know that the city and metro populations are about the same, that makes them feel the same, my perception based on numbers. Also as others mentioned, it's not easy to compare them because their layouts are different.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,542,189 times
Reputation: 6677
The reason Miami "feels" larger to me is due to the variety within its urban fabric. Aside from its obvious and continuous skyline, being water based offers the additional elements of a port, bridges and beaches that is found in other large cities/metros I lived in (NYC, SF, LA). Miami Beach and Ft Lauderdale are also separate cities from Miami--what secondary and tertiary cities does the Atlanta metro have that compete with these two?
Last edited by elchevere; 11-20-2021 at 07:36 AM..
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.
