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

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by jpdivola

Yeah, I think it is basically this. Atlanta is viewed as more of a suburban regional agglomeration than a vibrant city that you experience at ground level. Thats obvioulsy less true with each passing year as the city infills and develops. But Atlanta still has some ways to go before it is considered a "city" on par with Philly or Boston.

I think Seattle's city and DC's suburbs are a good model for the area to follow. Develop a mix use core, urban villages in the streetcar suburb city neighborhoods and then TOD and town centers in the leafy cul-de-sec post war suburbs.

Atl is pretty much already doing this. It just needs 20-30 years of execution.

It is definitely true that Atlanta is viewed as more of a suburban regional agglomeration, and that's changing fast. I would say Atlanta's urban core and surrounding areas are growing much faster than it needing still 20-30 years to be on par with certain urban cities in the country.. I would say significantly less time than that, more like 5-15 years. The rate at which Downtown-Midtown-Buckhead and certain surrounding areas are growing/changing is outstanding.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think it has much to do with relative urbanity.

Keep in mind that, in the rest of the world, urbanity is a given, so isn't really appreciated. Outside of NYC there is no city in U.S./Canada where someone from Europe is going to be impressed by urbanity. And Europeans love LA, Vegas and Miami, none of which are particularly urban, and are less enamored with Boston, Philly and Chicago, all of which are quite urban (for U.S. standards).

In the rest of the developed world.

Urbanization by country.



It was only in 2008 that the world marked a milestone where 50% of the total human population lived in cities.

Then again, those who travel internationally as tourists are probably at least somewhat familiar with cities in their home country first, and unlikely to be a rural villager in Asia or Africa whose first exposure to a big city is abroad.

[The North One]

He's talking about traditional, walkable urbanity which is abundant in Europe and scarce in North America.

The vast majority of "urban city" in America is suburbs. The whole statistic is extremely misleading.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by The North One

He's talking about traditional, walkable urbanity which is abundant in Europe and scarce in North America.

The vast majority of "urban city" in America is suburbs. The whole statistic is extremely misleading.

Are most tourists to North America from overseas Europeans?

Europe may have really old, traditional walkable urbanity preserved well, but many other places that have big bustling cities industrialized fairly late and sometimes don't even have their average architecture or buildings being as "old" as New York or Chicago (eg. those in Asia where urban populations grew rapidly, like Dubai or Hong Kong).

[urbanadvocate]

Originally Posted by nature's calling

This is a little out of touch. Hip hop?

Where does this idea that Hip Hop is somehow rooted in Atlanta come from? Hip Hop comes from counterculture movements in the Bronx in the 1960s and 1970s than became a voice of radicalism in LA during the late 1980s.

Atlanta may have many Hip Hop artists currently based there but the cultural significance of the artistic movement will always be synonymous with the Bronx and LA. Atlanta has just been able to take advantage, on a commercial level, of a globalized phenomenon. Give it time but maybe it will place it's own spin on it in a more culturally significant way than just record sales and quantity of pop hip hop artists.

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by urbanadvocate

Where does this idea that Hip Hop is somehow rooted in Atlanta come from? Hip Hop comes from counterculture movements in the Bronx in the 1960s and 1970s than became a voice of radicalism in LA during the late 1980s.

Atlanta may have many Hip Hop artists currently based there but the cultural significance of the artistic movement will always be synonymous with the Bronx and LA. Atlanta has just been able to take advantage, on a commercial level, of a globalized phenomenon. Give it time but maybe it will place it's own spin on it in a more culturally significant way than just record sales and quantity of pop hip hop artists.

No one said hip hop is rooted in Atlanta.. I think you are greatly downplaying Atlanta's significance in the industry now and in the past couple of decades.. You must not be very familiar with the Atlanta scene and how significant it has been..People on this thread have been mentioning everything Atlanta is known for, and whether you know it or not, music in general is a big part of it, primarily Hip Hop. It is arguably the center of the scene today, and probably has been for a few years. Even the New York times stated in 2009 that Atlanta is "hip-hop's center of gravity"

[urbanadvocate]

Originally Posted by One ATLien

No one said hip hop is rooted in Atlanta.. I think you are greatly downplaying Atlanta's significance in the industry now and in the past couple of decades.. You must not be very familiar with the Atlanta scene and how significant it has been..People on this thread have been mentioning everything Atlanta is known for, and whether you know it or not, music in general is a big part of it, primarily Hip Hop. It is arguably the center of the scene today, and probably has been for a few years. Even the New York times stated in 2009 that Atlanta is "hip-hop's center of gravity"

I don't doubt that Atlanta tops other cities in terms of current hip hop artists and record sales (and I do think there is certainly an importance to it now) but I just don't see it as being as highly significant and a cultural touting factor as it was for NY in the 1970s and LA in the late 1980s. It has become too mainstream and globalized with different regions having different forms--Atlanta just has one of the more commercially popular scenes. Commercialized does not necessarily mean cultural capital (although it can and I do think Atlanta does have the potential of making that happen).

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by One ATLien

It is definitely true that Atlanta is viewed as more of a suburban regional agglomeration, and that's changing fast. I would say Atlanta's urban core and surrounding areas are growing much faster than it needing still 20-30 years to be on par with certain urban cities in the country.. I would say significantly less time than that, more like 5-15 years. The rate at which Downtown-Midtown-Buckhead and certain surrounding areas are growing/changing is outstanding.

Except that most traditional urban cities are also developing their urban cores at a monstrous pace, probably even more intensely than Atlanta is.

Too many forumers here make the mistake of assuming that their city is doing things by leaps and bounds, but in a vacuum.

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Except that most traditional urban cities are also developing their urban cores at a monstrous pace, probably even more intensely than Atlanta is.

Too many forumers here make the mistake of assuming that their city is doing things by leaps and bounds, but in a vacuum.

I keep up with development in other US cities to some degree, and I'm well aware that it is a national trend, especially among major cities that they are booming rapidly, and a lot of urban centers are going through a period of revitalization. But to say that most traditional urban cities are developing "probably even more intensely than Atlanta is." Is simply not true. Some are, yes, but "most", definitely not. There are an immense amount of projects in the city limits, whether new construction or renovation work. And the amount of projects that are slated to begin soon are equal or even greater in quantity. And keep in mind the ratio of city limits to outer city limits population in Atlanta is huge, even for American standards, less then 10%. Even if significantly less urban projects are in the works, the change in the urban environment will be more significant then more traditionally urban parts of the country.

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by urbanadvocate

I don't doubt that Atlanta tops other cities in terms of current hip hop artists and record sales (and I do think there is certainly an importance to it now) but I just don't see it as being as highly significant and a cultural touting factor as it was for NY in the 1970s and LA in the late 1980s. It has become too mainstream and globalized with different regions having different forms--Atlanta just has one of the more commercially popular scenes. Commercialized does not necessarily mean cultural capital (although it can and I do think Atlanta does have the potential of making that happen).

Fair enough, I would disagree with the notion that it is purely commercialized though. Atlanta did invent "Trap music" And that has evolved to arguably being the most popular sub-Genre of Hip Hop today. So one can strongly argue that is a cultural contribution in the music/Hip Hop world.

[Omaharocks]

^ Yeah, I'm in Atlanta most the time these days, but still travel for work.

The development in Atlanta is outpaced only by a handful (or less) of cities, and none of them are traditional urban centers. Seattle, maybe Austin, Dallas, Denver (per capita).

I'd say Atlanta has nothing to worry about. It's the only one of the major, fast growing sunbelt cities that has a large number of traditional, walkable, pre-WWII neighborhoods. Unless you count L.A. in that list. It's also got a great transit system in the core, even if not extensive yet. It's a pretty city, it's got a nice climate overall, a lot of great destinations nearby - mtns, beaches, Savannah/Charleston/Asheville etc, and it's relatively affordable. It will be fine, even if it doesn't catch NYC or Chicago or L.A.

The main issues holding Atlanta back are the fractured regionalism (too many municipalities in the metro), and of course the fact that most of boomed at just the wrong time. But I've learned over the years Atlanta is a trendy city rather than sprawly by its nature...hence it's urbanizing quickly now that it's the trend.

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

^ Yeah, I'm in Atlanta most the time these days, but still travel for work.

The development in Atlanta is outpaced only by a handful (or less) of cities, and none of them are traditional urban centers. Seattle, maybe Austin, Dallas, Denver (per capita).

I'd say Atlanta has nothing to worry about. It's the only one of the major, fast growing sunbelt cities that has a large number of traditional, walkable, pre-WWII neighborhoods. Unless you count L.A. in that list. It's also got a great transit system in the core, even if not extensive yet. It's a pretty city, it's got a nice climate overall, a lot of great destinations nearby - mtns, beaches, Savannah/Charleston/Asheville etc, and it's relatively affordable. It will be fine, even if it doesn't catch NYC or Chicago or L.A.

The main issues holding Atlanta back are the fractured regionalism (too many municipalities in the metro), and of course the fact that most of boomed at just the wrong time. But I've learned over the years Atlanta is a trendy city rather than sprawly by its nature...hence it's urbanizing quickly now that it's the trend.

Yes.. Seattle relative to Atlanta, was actually one of the first cities that came to mind, when thinking what was maybe outpacing Atlanta's change. They are building and proposing an incredible amount of towers over there. And I agree that one of the main issues holding Atlanta back is fractured regionalism, I wish Atlanta city limits were significantly bigger like other cities in the country. But better yet of course would be to continue rapidly densifying Atlanta's urban core.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by One ATLien

IBut to say that most traditional urban cities are developing "probably even more intensely than Atlanta is." Is simply not true. Some are, yes, but "most", definitely not.

It's pretty obvious that all the legacy U.S. major cities are developing more intensely than Atlanta, at least if we're talking urban development. There's almost no traditional-style urban development in Atlanta. Midtown Atlanta, if it were in the Northeast Corridor, would be considered suburban.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by One ATLien

I keep up with development in other US cities to some degree, and I'm well aware that it is a national trend, especially among major cities that they are booming rapidly, and a lot of urban centers are going through a period of revitalization. But to say that most traditional urban cities are developing "probably even more intensely than Atlanta is." Is simply not true. Some are, yes, but "most", definitely not. There are an immense amount of projects in the city limits, whether new construction or renovation work. And the amount of projects that are slated to begin soon are equal or even greater in quantity. And keep in mind the ratio of city limits to outer city limits population in Atlanta is huge, even for American standards, less then 10%. Even if significantly less urban projects are in the works, the change in the urban environment will be more significant then more traditionally urban parts of the country.

Fair enough, I guess “most” is a bad choice of a word. But it is not easy to quantify this for comparative reasons.

For example; city X and city Y could be building equal numbers of high rises, but city X could be developing a much more urban environment than city Y.

Another possibility is that a city could be developing far more housing than another city; but the latter is still building a more urban environment than the former.

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's pretty obvious that all the legacy U.S. major cities are developing more intensely than Atlanta, at least if we're talking urban development. There's almost no traditional-style urban development in Atlanta. Midtown Atlanta, if it were in the Northeast Corridor, would be considered suburban.

Pretty obvious how? And what do you mean by traditional-style urban development?

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Fair enough, I guess “most” is a bad choice of a word. But it is not easy to quantify this for comparative reasons.

For example; city X and city Y could be building equal numbers of high rises, but city X could be developing a much more urban environment than city Y.

Another possibility is that a city could be developing far more housing than another city; but the latter is still building a more urban environment than the former.

Good Points, that's true, unless you have a very thorough analysis of all sorts of developments and compare.

Either way the scale of whats happening in Atlanta and Metro Atlanta is a lot more than what an average outsider would think. And I'm talking all aspects of development, from town homes to repurposed industrial buildings to new high density residential buildings, to new HQ locating here.. Many who move here or visit this city lately have either no, or low expectations, but end up being very pleasantly surprised or shocked even at what they see, especially if you have someone show you around, since Atlanta is still not well connected yet as a whole, this still needs a few years.

And this doesn't completely tie in to the urban development point, but Atlanta has the 3rd highest concentration of fortune 500 Companies in America, with many of those companies being founded here, that must mean something on a national and global scale.

[austin242]

Atlanta Has nothing but an Airport. That's all y'all are really known for. Houston We have a Problem. NY the city that never sleeps. La Hollywood and the beach/ the Olympics again. Chicago-American city with culture. Detroit Urban decay. Denver the mountain city that's high. San Fran Gay hippie tech. Miami Beach. Atlanta Airport. That is why. If all people think about you're city is that it has a Delta hub then you don't have a lot going for you. Every city has an airport. We don't really say "you know what I wanna do is go to that city with a big airport". Atlanta must have an image issue. However I really wouldn't know because I've never been and never wanted to because I think it's just a city with an airport. For all I know it is.

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by austin242

Atlanta Has nothing but an Airport. That's all y'all are really known for. Houston We have a Problem. NY the city that never sleeps. La Hollywood and the beach/ the Olympics again. Chicago-American city with culture. Detroit Urban decay. Denver the mountain city that's high. San Fran Gay hippie tech. Miami Beach. Atlanta Airport. That is why. If all people think about you're city is that it has a Delta hub then you don't have a lot going for you. Every city has an airport. We don't really say "you know what I wanna do is go to that city with a big airport". Atlanta must have an image issue. However I really wouldn't know because I've never been and never wanted to because I think it's just a city with an airport. For all I know it is.

In that case I hope you visit one day for one reason or another and explore what the city has to offer.. its pretty damn big.
I'm not going to type an essay here and list everything, but I assure you Atlanta has a lot more then just the busiest Airport in the world. Other people may know Atlanta for different things, and Atlanta actually has quite an interesting history for a relatively young city. As far as major cities go, Atlanta fly's under the radar for most.. But that seems to be changing as well.

[Omaharocks]

Originally Posted by austin242

Atlanta Has nothing but an Airport. That's all y'all are really known for. Houston We have a Problem. NY the city that never sleeps. La Hollywood and the beach/ the Olympics again. Chicago-American city with culture. Detroit Urban decay. Denver the mountain city that's high. San Fran Gay hippie tech. Miami Beach. Atlanta Airport. That is why. If all people think about you're city is that it has a Delta hub then you don't have a lot going for you. Every city has an airport. We don't really say "you know what I wanna do is go to that city with a big airport". Atlanta must have an image issue. However I really wouldn't know because I've never been and never wanted to because I think it's just a city with an airport. For all I know it is.

The image perspective you raise is common among upper-middle class 25-40 ish white folks in the "it" cities.

Atlanta certainly doesn't have an image issue in the black community. The reality of atlanta is as far from all popular imagery of atlanta as any city in the country at this point imo. Honestly I think atlanta is largely like a new-built form version of Chicago - an ambitious regional hub with an Americana blend.

[Omaharocks]

Originally Posted by One ATLien

Pretty obvious how? And what do you mean by traditional-style urban development?

This is classic Crawford. I've seen it for years and it's not worth engaging.