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 is too heavily forested too "look" urban on a larger scale than just the downtown and immediate surroundings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMatl
Not really. Forested and urban are not mutually exclusive, and we love forested.
Yeah, I never understood the mentality people have of how forest precludes urbanity. Perhaps because preservation of coverage may not lead to the more organized look associated with "traditional" city planning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by R1070
The funny thing is the links provided show areas of Atlanta that look like Dallas, but you all say Dallas has no trees, so I’m confused.
They're probably just speaking from a relative standpoint. The natural Dallas landscape has greater amounts of prairie land, so there's not as extensive amount of mature natural tree coverage as present in Atlanta. But, at the same time, Dallas is not a "true" prairie from a climactic perspective, and it can obviously grow and support decent tree coverage, definitely compared to areas of the country farther west - it's a similar situation when you compare Great Lakes/Eastern Midwest cities versus the Northeast.
I think some folks are still being obtuse on this topic.
Yes, it's possible for an area to be forested and urban. But that simply doesn't apply to large swaths of Atlanta and especially not Atlanta's suburbs.
The difference between places like Dallas/Houston and Atlanta is that the environment around Atlanta outside of its core developed in a way to ensure minimal destruction to its natural landscape so that a "rural, small town feel" was maintained. It's not the same as walking/driving along a densely built street with trees planted along the sidewalk.
I think some folks are still being obtuse on this topic.
Yes, it's possible for an area to be forested and urban. But that simply doesn't apply to large swaths of Atlanta and especially not Atlanta's suburbs.
The difference between places like Dallas/Houston and Atlanta is that the environment around Atlanta outside of its core developed in a way to ensure minimal destruction to its natural landscape so that a "rural, small town feel" was maintained. It's not the same as walking/driving along a densely built neighborhood or commercial strips with trees planted along the sidewalk.
Exactly.
I like how Atlanta neighborhoods developed amongst is surroundings. I don't think it's a bag thing to say Atlanta is a forested metro, but it does make the overall build of the metro less built up than its counterparts further west.
Would be
New Orleans
Miami
Houston
DFW
Atlanta
For the bigger metros.
Exactly.
I like how Atlanta neighborhoods developed amongst is surroundings. I don't think it's a bag thing to say Atlanta is a forested metro, but it does make the overall build of the metro less built up than its counterparts further west.
Would be
New Orleans
Miami
Houston
DFW
Atlanta
For the bigger metros.
San Antonio too I would put on par with DFW.
This brings us back to the topic of the thread. What about the denser makeup of Dallas and Houston's suburbs make them "urban"? Their suburbs aren't any more walkable or less car-dependent than Atlanta's so how are those denser suburbs giving them an edge here when Atlanta's core blows theirs out of the water in walkability?
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.