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.
Oh ya, we drive through the north GA area at least once a year when traveling to Florida. We've even considered relocating there but we'd have to find a good church. Funny thing is, south Georgia is such a different story. Flat, swampy... dare I say... sort of ugly lol. North GA totally makes up for it lol. South GA just feels like FL without the beaches haha.
South GA does look like Florida but it has beaches on the coast. They span I-95 from Savannah down to Jacksonville (Georgia-Florida Border) around 140 miles, you have numerous beaches on islands. Cumberland and Jekyll Islands have nice white sand beaches. There's no construction allowed on the 17 miles of Cumberland Island beaches to protect the wildlife so it's very pristine https://www.exploregeorgia.org/blog/...berland-island . Tybee Island is probably the most popular beach as it's close to Savannah. Also, another good thing about Georgia is you're in close proximity to some of the best beaches in America in Panama City and Destin.
Georgia and Illinois are two states both dominated by one large city/metro. Which state do you think has the best group of cities outside of its large city/metro area?
Going by the cities (not the nature of the countryside) I went with Illinois. I DO believe that Savannah is likely a great place, but I have never been. I have driven through GA on 1-75 multiple times and I don't see anything remarkable about Macon from there. I have also not gotten off the beaten path to see what is there.
I have been in about every city in Illinois and I like the closeness of central Illinois cities, and the history they have. I do like Peoria, the Quad Cities and how the rivers and bluffs shape their development. I like how their cities are not totally dependent on Chicago. There are more primary commercial airports in the Illinois Cities, and better Amtrak connectivity (which makes sense based on the hub in Chicago).
I am one of the people who can appreciate the history of an area, and am not always looking for the trendy new city, or the one that has all the bright and shiny things.
Outside of the cities, Illinois is a lot of cornfields except along the Illinois and Mississippi rivers, and then in the extreme south.
Chicago is significantly better than anywhere in Georgia, but Georgia overall as a state does better. Second biggest city in Illinois is Peoria, I think, which really is better than people think, but Georgia just has lots more options (Augusta, Savannah, Columbus mainly) and more different vibes.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,988,805 times
Reputation: 7333
Although both states are setup similarly when it comes to cities (one massive one and a bunch of mid to small cities after that), Illinois has no comparable city to Savannah. As one of the first European cities on the continent paired with it's modern awesomeness, that's pretty hard to beat.
This is where I have to disagree. The largest Illinois cities and GA cities over 100,000 are as follows:
Chicago- 2.8 MIllion Atlanta- 498,000
Aurora- 177,000 Columbus 206,000
Naperville- 151,000 Augusta 202,000
Joliet- 150,000 Savannah-150,000
Rockford 147,000 Athens 110,000
Elgin 116,000 Sandy Springs-110,000
Springfield 114,000
Peoria 110,000
I would take Naperville over everything in this list; Savannah is unique and historic, but run down in areas as well; Galena in Illinois is just as historic without the luggage. While some of the Illinois towns on the list are not going anywhere ( maybe Springfield, but with cool Lincoln sights) there are more of them, and none on this list are bad, and some underrated or just not thought of ( Peoria, Elgin). Macon in Georgia has the distinction of being the worst city in the U.S. on some lists.
As far as Champaign ( pop 89,000 vs Athens pop 110,000) Ill take Champaign with the U of Illinois campus and explosive growth in construction in the Campus Town area, Athens is cool, though.
Using city populations is kinda cheap imo. Anyone who has been to Atlanta knows it’s way bigger than 498k. And also the big advantage I reiterated for Georgia is the cities outside of the principal MSA. Aurora, Naperville, Joliet, and Elgin are a part of Chicagoland. Likewise for Sandy Springs being a part of Metro ATL. Sure Galena is nice but it in no way compares to Savannah. Not even close. There’s no answer for Savannah in IL. Then there’s Columbus as well which is much nicer than Peoria (even if Peoria is underrated). I agree with Champaign > Athens but other than that I can’t see Illinois winning this since Columbus and Savannah have almost no equivalent in Illinois.
This is where I have to disagree. The largest Illinois cities and GA cities over 100,000 are as follows:
Chicago- 2.8 MIllion Atlanta- 498,000
Aurora- 177,000 Columbus 206,000
Naperville- 151,000 Augusta 202,000
Joliet- 150,000 Savannah-150,000
Rockford 147,000 Athens 110,000
Elgin 116,000 Sandy Springs-110,000
Springfield 114,000
Peoria 110,000
I would take Naperville over everything in this list; Savannah is unique and historic, but run down in areas as well; Galena in Illinois is just as historic without the luggage. While some of the Illinois towns on the list are not going anywhere ( maybe Springfield, but with cool Lincoln sights) there are more of them, and none on this list are bad, and some underrated or just not thought of ( Peoria, Elgin). Macon in Georgia has the distinction of being the worst city in the U.S. on some lists.
As far as Champaign ( pop 89,000 vs Athens pop 110,000) Ill take Champaign with the U of Illinois campus and explosive growth in construction in the Campus Town area, Athens is cool, though.
I'm pretty sure Athens is better than Champaign/Urbana. Athens is widely respected as a great college town, whereas Champaign... is not.
Using city populations is kinda cheap imo. Anyone who has been to Atlanta knows it’s way bigger than 498k. And also the big advantage I reiterated for Georgia is the cities outside of the principal MSA.
Exactly right. This habit in C-D of using lists of municipal populations as the yardstick must end. Atlanta has 498,000 residents because its city limits haven't been able to grow since 1958. The Georgia legislature has made sure of that, as opposition by state legislators representing Atlanta suburbs have opposed Atlanta annexation since around the time Marilyn Monroe died (August 1962). Yet Atlanta has 6.1 people in its metro area, it has the largest airport in the world by passenger volume and daily flights, it won the Olympics in 1996, and it can't be defined by old municipal boundaries.
Jacksonville was able to expand its city boundaries in 1969. It is officially Florida's largest city, with almost 900,000 people. But it is small potatoes compared to Miami, with its metro of 6 million, or metro Atlanta. Things to do, good food, everything under the sun: Miami and Atlanta blow Jacksonville out of the water.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,988,805 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonbauknight
Exactly right. This habit in C-D of using lists of municipal populations as the yardstick must end. Atlanta has 498,000 residents because its city limits haven't been able to grow since 1958. The Georgia legislature has made sure of that, as opposition by state legislators representing Atlanta suburbs have opposed Atlanta annexation since around the time Marilyn Monroe died (August 1962). Yet Atlanta has 6.1 people in its metro area, it has the largest airport in the world by passenger volume and daily flights, it won the Olympics in 1996, and it can't be defined by old municipal boundaries.
Jacksonville was able to expand its city boundaries in 1969. It is officially Florida's largest city, with almost 900,000 people. But it is small potatoes compared to Miami, with its metro of 6 million, or metro Atlanta. Things to do, good food, everything under the sun: Miami and Atlanta blow Jacksonville out of the water.
Bingo. City limits are literally arbitrary and based on a mix of factors both political or natural. Are really going to sit here and say that Atlanta, Miami, DC, San Francisco, and Boston are not relevant because they have small municipal boundaries and thus all have populations under 1 million? Is Jacksonville comparable to any of those places?
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.
