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 mean there are quite a few very vocal people on these sites that hate anything in the South.They lump the region together as if it were all the same.Atlanta is not Charlotte.Houston is not Atlanta.Not matter the subject,if it involves anything competing the South against any other region,in their minds the South cannot compete.
I tried to rep you, but it said I need to "spread it around."
I mean there are quite a few very vocal people on these sites that hate anything in the South.They lump the region together as if it were all the same.Atlanta is not Charlotte.Houston is not Atlanta.Not matter the subject,if it involves anything competing the South against any other region,in their minds the South cannot compete.
yeah i see what you're saying. Being a northerner, of course I come to the table with "bias", but I don't mindlessly bash other cities.
I feel as if the older, northeastern cities do have more of a story to tell regarding their skylines and perhaps - infrastructure overall. For example, many of the northern cities have had a "great fire of 18xx" in which much of the city would be rebuilt, and throughout the decades, you see changes in architecture from art deco to more modern developments. I know this isn't correct, but it does seem like many of the southern/western cities were built overnight with cookie-cutter buildings.
Furthermore, I know Atlanta has a robust rapid transit system, but overall, the northern/eastern cities have more public transit options than the automobile-centric LA-type of cities. San Fransisco is perhaps one exception to that rule.
yeah i see what you're saying. Being a northerner, of course I come to the table with "bias", but I don't mindlessly bash other cities.
I feel as if the older, northeastern cities do have more of a story to tell regarding their skylines and perhaps - infrastructure overall. For example, many of the northern cities have had a "great fire of 18xx" in which much of the city would be rebuilt, and throughout the decades, you see changes in architecture from art deco to more modern developments. I know this isn't correct, but it does seem like many of the southern/western cities were built overnight with cookie-cutter buildings.
Furthermore, I know Atlanta has a robust rapid transit system, but overall, the northern/eastern cities have more public transit options than the automobile-centric LA-type of cities. San Fransisco is perhaps one exception to that rule.
You realize ofcourse Atlanta had a very famous "great fire of 18xx" and it also has many historical buildings such as one of the first Flat Iron buildings (predates New Yorks Flat Iron building) which is one of the first skyscrapers built in America.
yeah i see what you're saying. Being a northerner, of course I come to the table with "bias", but I don't mindlessly bash other cities.
I feel as if the older, northeastern cities do have more of a story to tell regarding their skylines and perhaps - infrastructure overall. For example, many of the northern cities have had a "great fire of 18xx" in which much of the city would be rebuilt, and throughout the decades, you see changes in architecture from art deco to more modern developments. I know this isn't correct, but it does seem like many of the southern/western cities were built overnight with cookie-cutter buildings.
Furthermore, I know Atlanta has a robust rapid transit system, but overall, the northern/eastern cities have more public transit options than the automobile-centric LA-type of cities. San Fransisco is perhaps one exception to that rule.
Well it is true there are less cities that have been around as long,but there are some.New Orleans is not much younger than NYC.Atlanta and New Orleans both had major streetcar systems.But based on your statements,you must not know that Houston,Dallas,OKC,and yes Atlanta have some great examples of Neoclassical Art Deco,Georgian,Greek Revival as well as the modern day.A few of Atlanta's tallest oldest buildings buildings.
You realize ofcourse Atlanta had a very famous "great fire of 18xx" and it also has many historical buildings such as one of the first Flat Iron buildings (predates New Yorks Flat Iron building) which is one of the first skyscrapers built in America.
Atlanta and Columbia were stops on Sherman's "Urban Renewal--Civil War Style" tour and were burned, and Jacksonville also had a great fire in the early 1900's. Charleston suffered a devastating earthquake in 1886 which had the same effect as a great fire.
I looked at the height of those buildings.Atlanta has over 70 buildings over 100meters tall.Philly has about 45.Atlanta also has more highrises overall.Yet Philly and Atlanta are virtually the same size(land wise).Atlanta top 100 tallest buildings are taller than Phillys top 100 buildings.Height is not everything,but if someone is talking density in a skyline like its the MOST important factor is odd in my opinion.
I think some (and know myself) struggle with not just the skyline but how you live and work in it's confines, an issue with Downtown Atlanta would be much rise but at the street level nowhere near the same vibrance (at least after 5 or on weekends). I know that isn't all the criteria nor should it be how this thread is decided. I just don't feel like there is life (or as much life) in downtown Atlanata. Center City Philly is a combination of work (hi-rises), neighborhoods, and vibrance. I was recently in a snow storm on a Saturday and saw the city full of life (everyone was out and about). I think this is where I get caught up with density or vibrance or whatever. When I look at the Philly skyline I see home, restaurants, parks, and the PEOPLE (who actually live in the neighborhood) that make my neighborhood home, so that being said I guess I am biased and voted for Philly.
I think that neighter city has any edge in architecture. Atlanta has more hieght, but Philedalphia has more density and(even though this doesn't matter) more history. This is really hard to say, but I just decided to vote Atlanta because I live there.
The best way to view Philly is by plane, the first time I was flying into Philly Airport I was blown away by how nice Philly's skyline was.
Agree on approach most days the right side of the plane gives a great view. Also if you are arriving from the North or Europe the approach to Philly can give a great view of NYC in the distance just prior to the last laft bank turn. You can see both in the last 5 minutes of the flight
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.
I tried to rep you, but it said I need to "spread it around."
