What keeps Atlanta from reaching LA, Chicago, or NYC levels?
 

I like most consider Atlanta to be an international city, and easily one of the most well known within the US, but still a step or two below the Chicago's, LA's and NYC's of the world.

Aside from population, obviously, what keeps Atlanta from reaching these heights?

I would say it's a mixture of heavy rail transportation, and remnants of Old-South conservatism prohibiting more explosive multi-cultural growth.

Sprawl, bad planning, no grid.

Atlanta is not well known outside the US. maybe in the 1990s for a brief period, but that's it.

Miami, NYC, Chicago, LA, SF, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Boston, DC, Detroit are more well known.

The 1996 Summer Olympics, and it being in strong contention for the 2026 World Cup says otherwise. :shrug:

I disagree.

Atlanta is well known internationally not only because of the Olympics, but also because of its airport. It also has one of the largest and most diverse corporate presence of any US city outside of NYC and Chicago (if you're important in the business world, you're likely going to be doing a fair amount of business travel to Atlanta). Furthermore, they don't think "Georgia" when Atlanta comes up in conversations (it's prominent enough to be discussed without being associated with Georgia).

I don't know of anyone who consider the cities of Dallas / Houston relevant outside the US. It's all "Texas" to them, the land of rednecks and cowboys (see King of the Hill and the character Kahn).

The same applies to Miami. To them, it's all "Florida," the land of Disney, Palm Trees and Beaches.

I will give you Detroit. It's the world's automotive capital after all. I will also give you DC (it's the nation's capital). I will also give you Seattle (because of Amazon / Microsoft), and Boston (because of MIT / Harvard). I will spot you San Francisco as well (Silicon Valley)

NYC, Chicago and LA are in classes of their own, simply because they're the largest cities in the country.

Bear in mind, Atlanta is still a fairly young city that's just starting to come of age. Los Angeles wasn't an "international city" for the first half of the 20th century either.

The city / state has the money to improve its transportation, but there just hasn't been enough will power for the second reason you stated.

With the trend in long-term migration to the sunbelt region and the demographics trending younger, that's going to change much sooner than later.

Atlanta's future is mighty bright IMO.

It's very international since it's a major transfer hub for US flights out internationally.

An interesting question but perhaps specious. Atlanta will probably always be a major second tier city in the US. Its competition is not NYC, Chicago or LA. It is Dallas-FW, Houston, Miami, Washington, and perhaps Phoenix. It will compete well for the 6-8th metros in population over the next 20-30 years. Projections beyond that are surely speculative. NYC and LA will remain supreme, Chicago will stabilize at its current level. The long term effects of climate change, sea level rise and other catastrophic events may well determine the futures of NYC, LA, SF, Seattle, Miami, etc.

Atlanta is exploding onto the world stage the likes not seen since the Olympics. Atlanta/Georgia are now #1 for film production (https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/...oductions.html). It's not just Real Housewives. You have an actual hit show named "Atlanta;" Dynasty is now set in Atlanta; there's the Walking Dead, Baby Driver, etc. Given that Atlanta's nascent soccer team is setting attendance records, I think it's a safe bet that the city will host some World Cup games.

And perhaps only pre-car cities can only truly reach alpha city type status since only they would have an expansive compact urban core and surrounding areas.

Does Atlanta have a cosmopolitan feel, a great urban core and design, a great transportation system, world class image and tourist attractions? If not, then this answers the question. As somebody from outside the U.S., I don't see Atlanta as standing out compared to many other American cities, some of which are significantly smaller. I know Atlanta hosted the Olympics but this is a temporary event that does not offer a lasting effect.

Until the most recent rankings (in 2016) were done by the GAWC, Atlanta and was considered an Alpha City.

I think Atlanta is fairly well known, due to Olympics and airport, but am confused as to why it should be considered as prominent as larger, more important cities.

Atlanta to its credit is the home of a massive black middle and upper class, which maybe should be more well known internationally especially these days. in terms of contemporary black culture, it's #1 in the US, ahead of DC.

but other southern cities are more culturally significant (memphis, new orleans, nashville), prettier and more historic (charleston, savannah, new orleans) which takes away from the recognition it would otherwise get

Not having a grid is a a problem for future densification and efficiently moving people and goods across the region. Cities built on a regional grid have future potential to rapidly fill-in and allow the entire region to have moderate density like is the case in Los Angeles.

As for sprawl, there's not much stopping Atlanta from sprawling even further outward, every city sprawls. This isn't unique to ATL. Atlanta will likely continue developing dense cbd nodes around the region surrounded by lower density residential like is the case in the Washington metro.

There are plenty of reasons. Tourism is one. New York has Times square, Rockefeller, Statue of liberty, unbelievable Broadway scene, ect... Chicago has Michigan Ave, and a food scene identity and much more. LA has Hollywood and every amusement park imaginable. I personally love touring and visiting each of these cities. And to me Atlanta has absolutely nothing for me that's worth visiting. So if someone like me from the USA doesn't feel its really worth touring there then why would people from outside of the USA care about visiting there? Making it less known from a world scale.

Then Chicago and New York (LA to an extent) Has a lot of historical atmosphere to the city. You go to Chicago or New York and the history is fascinating and has developed an atmosphere with time and history on their side. Atlanta doesn't really have that. LA has Hollywood and that set the atmosphere there and put them on a world scale. Atlanta doesn't feel a whole lot different from Phoenix. Except maybe being greener and more humid. But they are both relatively new, sprawled as can be, and no real identity of culture as most people are transplants. As say for Chicago the natives keep the identity of the city alive and all the culture and stereotypes alive.

I'll give one last thing also but Atlanta, though a large city, just doesn't compare to LA, Chicago, or New York simply because it is far from being large enough. Atlanta is large, the other three are just massive. That has a large reason to why outside the US it may not be quite as notable or well known. Think about it. When we think about other cities in the world we don't instantly think of Melborne, Hamburg, Budapest, and Brussels. All huge cities. Instead we think of the Largest cities out there, like Hong Kong, Shanghai, Paris, London, Seoul, Sydney, ect. So why would it be so much different outside the US? People of course are going to think of New York, Chicago, LA over Cleveland, Atlanta, Denver, San Diego, San Antonio; which are all huge cities in their own rights.

I never said it should be. I'm simply asking what missing characteristics are prohibiting it from actually being seen as one.

Atlanta is the birthplace of the Civil Rights movement. Arguably one of, if not the most important movement in modern US history. That alone brings enough history to the city.

Also, I already acknowledged the massive difference in size which distinguishes those cities from Atlanta. This thread was to look at other factors.

I agree with this sentiment. That said, Atlanta will feel more cosmopolitan once Midtown is built out and there's continuous development between Downtown, Midtown, Old Fourth Ward, Inman Park, Poncey-Highland, and Virginia Highland. Atlanta has a TON of room for infill at the moment and not many neighborhoods feel urban. Rather, many are similar to northeastern suburbs with truly limited retail within walking distance. Many of the neighborhoods are also disjointed form one another, despite increasing density and bike trails connecting neighborhoods. There are plenty of other neighborhoods that will get built out, but this area I identified is the most likely to blend together in the (relatively) near future. That will create a sizable area where people can take transit, bike, or walk and feel like they are still in a true city.

More crosstown transit is also planned and funded thanks to a self imposed sales tax. This will help in getting around essentially a 4 mile diameter circle from downtown Atlanta.

The sort of prominence that we are talking about is partially the result of cultural output over time. Atlanta hasn't been a massive city for long enough yet to rise to the same level as a cultural center. It has yet to spawn an internationally relevant cultural movement or have major cultural institutions. Cultural branding is what gives a city its oomph. It isn't something that can be manufactured by a government or chamber of commerce. It takes time and the accumulation of the works of creative geniuses.