What are you impressions of Atlanta in 2024?

[pj3000]

I guess I've never noticed Atlanta being necessarily any more leafy than what's found in similar neighborhoods in other eastern cities.

I think the notion is much more due to Atlanta not really having much of a pre-20th century dense urban residential footprint... so it beomes "suburban" very quickly (i.e., room for trees). I mean, within literally 2-3 blocks of central downtown/midtown/Buckhead, you find early 20th century neighborhoods with front yards.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

I have lived in Chicago, Boston and Baltimore. These are big cities with an urban feel, particularly Chicago. When we moved to ATL in 1992 it did not have that big-city urban feel: it was big but not even the urban feel of Baltimore (which was then about the same size metro). This “feeling”, which I admit is highly conceptual, has changed drastically in past 3 decades. It is now a big city with most of the characteristics of a complex urban area. It is no longer comparable to the smaller metros of Charlotte or Nashville.

It was never comparable to Charlotte or Nashville. Each of those were very sad little cities back when Atlanta hosted the Olympics in 1996. DT Nashville was a combination of strip clubs and Christian publishing companies. Charlotte was basically Springfield, OH.

In the 90s I went to a few concerts at The Masquerade (actually now I remember that I had backstage passes there for my 21st birthday), which was a great club. I just looked it up and unfortunately it's been lost for yuppie crap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADy6cIxMDuE

Nashville had a somewhat similar club in a former industrial space (I can't remember the name but it had a bunch of I-beams with rivets) on First Ave. that was torn down around 2002 for the Korean Vets bridge approach ramp.

[Shawn]

I haven't been to Atlanta in over 10 years, but I too don't remember it being particularly more forested than Boston's suburbs with equivalent built densities. pj3000's point seems accurate to me.

Newton, Brookline sans Coolidge Corner, Milton, Needham, Wellesley, Waltham . . . all the western suburbs are in the woods. Look at both metros from ~16km up in Google Earth. The difference is Atlanta has Newton-levels of built density/tree coverage a few blocks off Peachtree, whereas you've . . . got to go out to Newton to find that in Boston.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

Washington DC wins that though I believe Atlanta is #2.
https://propertyclub.nyc/article/ric...n%20the%20city.

It's unclear what their definition of "millionaire" is, but considering that it's some sort of real estate site, they are probably including equity in a primary residence in their tabulation, which many personal finance people frown upon. Obviously, it's much easier to accidentally become a "millionaire" if one's neighborhood becomes valuable.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

I wouldn't exactly use Hartsfield as "great leadership" in the case of black folks: https://cobbcountycourier.com/2016/0...a-annexations/

You missed two words in my description - "overall" and "civic".

"Atlanta is blessed overall with great civic leadership, not only with Maynard Jackson....."

Overall was used to contextualize (time, place, travel modes, as a group, etc.) - and civic meaning the city itself.
Hartsfield's insight in the 1940s-50s to the future of air travel and to invest city resources in building/growing the ATL airport was overall great (ok good) civic leadership.

If you look hard at any White politician prior to 1960's - or even today, you could find racial shortcomings. JFK was slow on advancing civil rights legislation. Lincoln's greater concern was with unifying the country than abolishing slavery. And it took Eleanor's prodding for FDR to move on some civil rights initiatives. I still think they were good, if not great leaders - not perfect.

And the article you linked is really not that strong of an indictment - the last sentence of his letter states: "This is not intended to stir race prejudice, because we all want to deal fairly with them, but do you want to hand them political control of Atlanta?”

It is ironic, the areas they were talking about annexing are some of the Blackest part of the city and center of city's Black political prowess. Almost all the last few mayors (Andy, Kasim, Kechia, Shirley, Andre) lives, connected to or from the neighborhoods mentioned - along with Black US Congresspersons and State politicians.

[Tuckerman]

[QUOTE=L41A;10294961]You missed two words in my description - "overall" and "civic".

There is little doubt that Atlanta has had terrific political and community leadership from the "black" community over the years and it continues. This has made Atlanta a distinctive city in the context of the historical racism that has dominated most of the USA. It is a city where you go as a "white' person to the dentist or doctor and you are not surprised that they are not white and it doesn't make any difference.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I haven't been to Atlanta in over 10 years, but I too don't remember it being particularly more forested than Boston's suburbs with equivalent built densities. pj3000's point seems accurate to me.

Newton, Brookline sans Coolidge Corner, Milton, Needham, Wellesley, Waltham . . . all the western suburbs are in the woods. Look at both metros from ~16km up in Google Earth. The difference is Atlanta has Newton-levels of built density/tree coverage a few blocks off Peachtree, whereas you've . . . got to go out to Newton to find that in Boston.

Right, it's basically a direct function of other eastern cities' being much larger and densely-built earlier and therefore their early suburbs just being located further from the core.

It's never seemed to me that "tree cover" of Atlanta's neighborhoods adjacent to its urban core is any greater than what one finds in the comparable neighborhoods elsewhere in the eastern US. It's certainly not something someone from Pennsylvania would ever note about Atlanta.

[Steely Dan]

Exactly, the existence of Atlanta's "forest suburbia" isn't really all that noteworthy by itself, but it's quite noteworthy for how close-in to the core it gets, such that you see it 3 blocks over from 50 story skyscrapers in some places.

That doesn't happen in the big legacy cities of the north.

Those distance shots of the tower clumps of downtown, midtown, and buckead poking up through what looks like could be the Amazon rainforest are a very "Atlanta" thing.

[Six Corners]

I will say, Atlanta's tree canopy (and it's winding roads) made it a pretty unconvincing stand-in for Chicago in the last season of Ozark.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by L41A

No. Louisiana is more 'aligned' with MS than it is with East Texas.
Also, Louisiana is also more 'aligned' with MS than MS is aligned with AL.
The history, culture, food, music of Louisiana and MS has more synergy which is augmented by their meshing/hugging geography and the proximity of their population centers.

I guess the coastal areas in these states are strongly aligned with each other, but Louisiana seems to be tilted to the coast more than MS and AL. New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile, Galveston, and Houston seem like a set of strongly culturally related cities. But when I think of Mississippi, I think more of Jackson than Biloxi. And when I think of Alabama, I think of Birmingham or Montgomery before Mobile.

[iheartthed]

Chicago was the mecca of rich Black people until the early 2000s. I believe the city had more rich Black people than any city in the world as recently as the 1990s. DC, Detroit, and NYC were all in the top 5 then too. Atlanta and DC are almost certainly the top two cities, but Atlanta's into the upper echelons is more of a late 20th and early 21st century phenomenon.

Originally Posted by L41A

The notion of Atlanta and Black millionaires came to light in the 1970 - 80s around the mayoral administration of Maynard Jackson (Atlanta's 1st Black mayor). Mayor Jackson implemented an Affirmation Action plan (which became a national model) which required minority participation in any city contracts/business. During this time major expansion of the city-owned airport (Jackson's namesake - Hartsfield Jackson) was being planned and constructed along with other construction in the city. It was stated his plan boosted Black business enterprises and thusly millionaires to a Black population already with a notable presence in the city.

I didn't know Maynard Jackson was the first, but a lot of cities did this in that era. Back when cable TV licenses were still controlled by city governments, DC paved the way for Robert Johnson to become the first Black billionaire by granting him the license for what eventually became BET.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I haven't been to Atlanta in over 10 years, but I too don't remember it being particularly more forested than Boston's suburbs with equivalent built densities. pj3000's point seems accurate to me.

Newton, Brookline sans Coolidge Corner, Milton, Needham, Wellesley, Waltham . . . all the western suburbs are in the woods. Look at both metros from ~16km up in Google Earth. The difference is Atlanta has Newton-levels of built density/tree coverage a few blocks off Peachtree, whereas you've . . . got to go out to Newton to find that in Boston.

33.8399932,-84.40010324 is about 5.5mi north of downtown atlanta, and 42.33274096,-71.18862637 is about 7mi (as the crow flies) west of downtown boston. not that that changes the point you're trying to make - but, as low density as atlanta is overall, this example is much more suburban than the downtown and midtown-adjacent streetcar suburbs that are a few blocks off peachtree like pj3000 mentions.

this is quasi-walkable, absolutely bikable streetcar suburban (downtown 1, midtown 1, midtown 2) which in my mind is a pretty stark contrast from your post streetcar suburban buckhead-adjacent example. there are a couple of smaller neighborhoods around buckhead village that are semi-walkable, like garden hills and peachtree hills, but these are the exception of course.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by pj3000

to its urban core is any greater than what one finds in the comparable neighborhoods elsewhere in the eastern US. It's certainly not something someone from Pennsylvania would ever note about Atlanta.

I guess it's semantics but I think the difference for me is that Atlanta's in town neighborhoods are super tree covered as well. I mean you get off the main commercial strips in Midtown and it's just massive trees in every house's yard. That's not a western suburb. That's ground zero. There are 10+ neighborhoods I can think of in VERY central Atlanta that are the exact same way.

Midtown
Ansley Park
Morningside
Virginia Highland
East Atlanta Village
Old Fourth Ward
Grant Park
Little Five Points
Inman Park
Cabbagetown

I mean these are very central places. Maybe "suburban" by Boston standards but they're walking distance to everything you'd need in a neighborhood and some of them are walking distance to skyscraper districts. I mean, you could be a partner at PWC in Midtown or a software engineer at Google and walk from your literal mansion in Ansley Park to work. I don't know of anywhere where you can do that in the US.

[mhays]

In an old downtown, I can't think of any. In a suburban downtown it happens.

Bellevue has the same dynamic. https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5969...oASAFQAw%3D%3D

[cabasse]

the SFH vernacular around bellevue is very 1950s (and after) suburban. big front lawns and wide roads, not the 10' strips of grass in front of houses in the neighborhoods around downtown/midtown atl.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I guess it's semantics but I think the difference for me is that Atlanta's in town neighborhoods are super tree covered as well. I mean you get off the main commercial strips in Midtown and it's just massive trees in every house's yard. That's not a western suburb. That's ground zero. There are 10+ neighborhoods I can think of in VERY central Atlanta that are the exact same way.

I mean these are very central places. Maybe "suburban" by Boston standards but they're walking distance to everything you'd need in a neighborhood and some of them are walking distance to skyscraper districts. I mean, you could be a partner at PWC in Midtown or a software engineer at Google and walk from your literal mansion in Ansley Park to work. I don't know of anywhere where you can do that in the US.

Yeah, this is what we're saying. Atlanta's in-town neighborhoods that abut the very core are early suburban in structure and style. We're not saying that they are "suburbs" in the common context of the word, and it has nothing to do with walking distance (unless we're talking about how you'd just have to walk a bit further to get to your mansion in a similarly styled neighborhood in say, Baltimore). It's just that the residential development of the era allowed for yards and tree-lined streets featuring large tree species. This type of early 20th century suburban development is generally just found much further out from the central core in places like DC, Balitmore, Boston, Philly, Pittsburgh, etc. due to their dense, urban cores being much larger.

[mhays]

Atlanta CBD-adjacent SFR residential lots do seem smaller than the 50s-70s stuff in central Bellevue.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Chicago was the mecca of rich Black people until the early 2000s. I believe the city had more rich Black people than any city in the world as recently as the 1990s. DC, Detroit, and NYC were all in the top 5 then too. Atlanta and DC are almost certainly the top two cities, but Atlanta's into the upper echelons is more of a late 20th and early 21st century phenomenon.

I didn't know Maynard Jackson was the first, but a lot of cities did this in that era. Back when cable TV licenses were still controlled by city governments, DC paved the way for Robert Johnson to become the first Black billionaire by granting him the license for what eventually became BET.

I was mainly just responding with an explanation of possible origins to the question/notion someone else posed relating to Blacks, millionaires, and Atlanta . I am not debating whether Atlanta has the most - instead the origin of that statement. Though, I don't see the statement as farfetched.

I ran across that statement decades ago (in the 80s) in an article (or some literature) that related Jackson's policies to an influx of millionaire status of Black Atlantans.

I admit, I included some of my admiration of Maynard Jackson and civic leadership in my explanation. But to everyone on forum, please don't take my responses as trying to promote, advocate, prove, etc. Atlanta to anyone.

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by L41A

You missed two words in my description - "overall" and "civic".

"Atlanta is blessed overall with great civic leadership, not only with Maynard Jackson....."

Overall was used to contextualize (time, place, travel modes, as a group, etc.) - and civic meaning the city itself.
Hartsfield's insight in the 1940s-50s to the future of air travel and to invest city resources in building/growing the ATL airport was overall great (ok good) civic leadership.

If you look hard at any White politician prior to 1960's - or even today, you could find racial shortcomings. JFK was slow on advancing civil rights legislation. Lincoln's greater concern was with unifying the country than abolishing slavery. And it took Eleanor's prodding for FDR to move on some civil rights initiatives. I still think they were good, if not great leaders - not perfect.

And the article you linked is really not that strong of an indictment - the last sentence of his letter states: "This is not intended to stir race prejudice, because we all want to deal fairly with them, but do you want to hand them political control of Atlanta?”

I never said Hartsfield wasn't great for Atlanta's civic boost. Notice I said in the case of black folks, not Atlanta in general. The part I bolded above shows this wasn't exactly for the "negro" but to temper tension overall. That cannot and should not be ignored. And yes, I agree that he was a man of his time and white leaders including JFK had their prejudices but still great leaders overall. But if we're talking about civic engagement for black folks, which I am, I don't believe Hartsfield would be a good example.

[ColDayMan]

[QUOTE=Tuckerman;10295036]

Originally Posted by L41A

You missed two words in my description - "overall" and "civic".

There is little doubt that Atlanta has had terrific political and community leadership from the "black" community over the years and it continues. This has made Atlanta a distinctive city in the context of the historical racism that has dominated most of the USA. It is a city where you go as a "white' person to the dentist or doctor and you are not surprised that they are not white and it doesn't make any difference.

I completely agree with most of this but isn't any metro with sizable POC populations not going to have that surprise?