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

[maru2501]

that (braves) may be, but the idea that it would even be seen as a viable option is telling

by and large, ATL is doing a lot right. I was just there in August. Lots of new building that is FINALLY capitalizing on the idea that not everyone wants to drive two hours each way to work. It has plenty of good neighborhoods, though it lacks urban bones on a very large scale - the scale of the 3 cities mentioned, which are fairly unique. Not that far outside the CBD you have fairly large single-family homes.

But none of that answers the actual question. I think in terms of influence, I agree with the planning model that looks at cities and patterns of cities as planets and solar systems. Milwaukee is great, but it is way to close to Chicago's gravitational pull, as it were. ATL has the southeast basically cornered, but if it were shifted too far west, that gets into the texas cities' orbit, too far south and it's Miami, etc.

so again, it is the capital of the Southeast, much of which still needs economic revitalization and to come to the 21st Century on social issues

ATL is gay friendly, and has a high black population, and isn't through-and-through conservative, but its region is another story, and that limits investment and influence

I'll stop gumming up the thread now. I wish the city well

[lrt's friend]

I have been to Atlanta a number of times but on no occasion was it my destination. I was either in transit to another place or going to somewhere in the surrounding area. I saw little of Atlanta even though I did visit a few attractions in the city including Braves Stadium.

To point out the issue, I ended up visiting places like Asheville, Charleston and Savannah, which had an appeal. Atlanta was the 'big city' in the area but it did not have the allure that a place like San Francisco has. Perhaps I will come again to properly see the city but its lack of distinctive image was a reason why it was not a priority in the past.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by maru2501

that (braves) may be, but the idea that it would even be seen as a viable option is telling

by and large, ATL is doing a lot right. I was just there in August. Lots of new building that is FINALLY capitalizing on the idea that not everyone wants to drive two hours each way to work. It has plenty of good neighborhoods, though it lacks urban bones on a very large scale - the scale of the 3 cities mentioned, which are fairly unique. Not that far outside the CBD you have fairly large single-family homes.

But none of that answers the actual question. I think in terms of influence, I agree with the planning model that looks at cities and patterns of cities as planets and solar systems. Milwaukee is great, but it is way to close to Chicago's gravitational pull, as it were. ATL has the southeast basically cornered, but if it were shifted too far west, that gets into the texas cities' orbit, too far south and it's Miami, etc.

so again, it is the capital of the Southeast, much of which still needs economic revitalization and to come to the 21st Century on social issues

ATL is gay friendly, and has a high black population, and isn't through-and-through conservative, but its region is another story, and that limits investment and influence

I'll stop gumming up the thread now. I wish the city well

Atlanta could be located where Birmingham or even Jackson is and it wouldn't be affected. Houston's sphere of influence ends at Lake Charles (our regional Las Vegas). Not even New Orleans is all that influenced by Houston.

[MolsonExport]

Is Newark a world-class city?


What is with these threads?

[Pemgin]

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.

lmbo, Well, at least you own your ignorance.

[Tuckerman]

Two things are amusing in this discussion and perhaps inevitable whenever we get into a city versus city comparison.

1. The raw and the cooked problem. Some cities are clearly growing and in development; they are still figuratively in the oven or even getting ready to go into the oven. Other cities are cooked; they have been in development for decades, even centuries. Older style urbanists tend to look at these cooked cities as the standard for what is considered urban. Many older urban areas tend to have developed considerably before motorized transportation and particularly before the development of the piston engine as the supplier of motive power. Hence they are fairly compact. In addition, in many places they developed when the collective institutions of power (city hall, church, market, shops, public square) were within a non-motorized distance of most residents. In general those who live in such cooked places believe that their place defines urban. In contrast, particularly in the United States, new urbanization since the auto age, chiefly post WWII, produced a very different urban layout. This new urbanization was fueled by a complex combination of domestic migration, population growth, industrial decline, immigration and many other phenomena that make understanding the growth of the “newer cities” very difficult. No single variable or simple set of variables can explain the phenomenal and continuing growth of Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, etc. But it is also clear that these cities are still cooking and show little sign of abating.
2. The definition of “urban” has become hopelessly entangled to the extent that the term is almost meaningless. Perhaps we should just jettison the term. When we try to clarify the meaning we use unfortunate terms. A favorite is the term “urban sprawl.” Is midtown Manhattan an example of urban sprawl? It surely isn’t suburban sprawl. It is just built up urbanity. The problem of defining urban is one reason why city-to-city comparison becomes so onerous.

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by urbanadvocate

Fair enough but i guess that is the point of this article. who gives two shits that trap music came from atlanta? anybody raising their hands?

I don't understand your thought process.. Help me out here.. Hip Hop was mentioned earlier as something Atlanta is known for culturally, and contributed in. You addressed the subject, then I replied to you to explain how its a bigger deal then you think it is, which it is btw, and I bought up that arguably the most popular genre in Hip Hop today is Trap music, which started out in Atlanta.. then you reply "and who gives two shits that trap music came from atlanta?" Whats your point? is there anything we have to give a shit about in that case? This is a thread about Atlanta after all isn't it? That's like someone commenting on a Nashville thread and mentioning How the city is well known for country music, and that's something they have contributed in culturally, then someone replying "and who gives two shits that Nashville is the center of the country music industry". Maybe you personally don't give a shit, but cant you be a little more objective here? It's clear from the beginning you didn't understand the scale of the Hip Hop Industry in Atlanta and its influence. And Obviously in the grand scheme of things one Sub-genre of music, isn't all that, Atlanta is known and contributed in a lot more things outside of music, but part of the conversation was culture, and Hip-Hop whether you like or not is a big part of it.

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Two things are amusing in this discussion and perhaps inevitable whenever we get into a city versus city comparison.

1. The raw and the cooked problem. Some cities are clearly growing and in development; they are still figuratively in the oven or even getting ready to go into the oven. Other cities are cooked; they have been in development for decades, even centuries. Older style urbanists tend to look at these cooked cities as the standard for what is considered urban. Many older urban areas tend to have developed considerably before motorized transportation and particularly before the development of the piston engine as the supplier of motive power. Hence they are fairly compact. In addition, in many places they developed when the collective institutions of power (city hall, church, market, shops, public square) were within a non-motorized distance of most residents. In general those who live in such cooked places believe that their place defines urban. In contrast, particularly in the United States, new urbanization since the auto age, chiefly post WWII, produced a very different urban layout. This new urbanization was fueled by a complex combination of domestic migration, population growth, industrial decline, immigration and many other phenomena that make understanding the growth of the “newer cities” very difficult. No single variable or simple set of variables can explain the phenomenal and continuing growth of Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, etc. But it is also clear that these cities are still cooking and show little sign of abating.
2. The definition of “urban” has become hopelessly entangled to the extent that the term is almost meaningless. Perhaps we should just jettison the term. When we try to clarify the meaning we use unfortunate terms. A favorite is the term “urban sprawl.” Is midtown Manhattan an example of urban sprawl? It surely isn’t suburban sprawl. It is just built up urbanity. The problem of defining urban is one reason why city-to-city comparison becomes so onerous.

I agree, great points

[One ATLien]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I have been to Atlanta a number of times but on no occasion was it my destination. I was either in transit to another place or going to somewhere in the surrounding area. I saw little of Atlanta even though I did visit a few attractions in the city including Braves Stadium.

To point out the issue, I ended up visiting places like Asheville, Charleston and Savannah, which had an appeal. Atlanta was the 'big city' in the area but it did not have the allure that a place like San Francisco has. Perhaps I will come again to properly see the city but its lack of distinctive image was a reason why it was not a priority in the past.

I am one the biggest proponents of Atlanta you will find out there, and frankly i used to dislike Atlanta, until I understood the city more and development picked up again, but I completely understand where you are coming from. Atlanta is by far the big city in the region, and it has almost everything those cities you mentioned has to offer and more. One of Atlanta's main problems, is that it is not well connected yet as a whole, its hard for an outsider to know his/her way around, and where the 'it' places are, the city is in the process of doing that now, and it has improved greatly but it still needs a few years.. That means if you were to visit the city again for whatever reason, you would understand and possibly like it much more if someone from here, who knows Atlanta well, were to show you around, point you in the right direction. So many different distinct parts of town, and the topography is quite lovely. You perception will change greatly. My friends who visit, end up loving the city and end up coming back whenever they can.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by One ATLien

I am one the biggest proponents of Atlanta you will find out there, and frankly i used to dislike Atlanta, until I understood the city more and development picked up again, but I completely understand where you are coming from. Atlanta is by far the big city in the region, and it has almost everything those cities you mentioned has to offer and more. One of Atlanta's main problems, is that it is not well connected yet as a whole, its hard for an outsider to know his/her way around, and where the 'it' places are, the city is in the process of doing that now, and it has improved greatly but it still needs a few years.. That means if you were to visit the city again for whatever reason, you would understand and possibly like it much more if someone from here, who knows Atlanta well, were to show you around, point you in the right direction. So many different distinct parts of town, and the topography is quite lovely. You perception will change greatly. My friends who visit, end up loving the city and end up coming back whenever they can.

I am sure that you are right. I have rarely found a place that I have not enjoyed visiting. Just to let you know that the city in which I live also lacks the international recognition that other cities in my country have even though the city has a lot to offer visitors.

[JManc]

Atlanta has(had) this guy:

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Two things are amusing in this discussion and perhaps inevitable whenever we get into a city versus city comparison.

1. The raw and the cooked problem. Some cities are clearly growing and in development; they are still figuratively in the oven or even getting ready to go into the oven. Other cities are cooked; they have been in development for decades, even centuries. Older style urbanists tend to look at these cooked cities as the standard for what is considered urban. Many older urban areas tend to have developed considerably before motorized transportation and particularly before the development of the piston engine as the supplier of motive power. Hence they are fairly compact. In addition, in many places they developed when the collective institutions of power (city hall, church, market, shops, public square) were within a non-motorized distance of most residents. In general those who live in such cooked places believe that their place defines urban. In contrast, particularly in the United States, new urbanization since the auto age, chiefly post WWII, produced a very different urban layout. This new urbanization was fueled by a complex combination of domestic migration, population growth, industrial decline, immigration and many other phenomena that make understanding the growth of the “newer cities” very difficult. No single variable or simple set of variables can explain the phenomenal and continuing growth of Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, etc. But it is also clear that these cities are still cooking and show little sign of abating.
2. The definition of “urban” has become hopelessly entangled to the extent that the term is almost meaningless. Perhaps we should just jettison the term. When we try to clarify the meaning we use unfortunate terms. A favorite is the term “urban sprawl.” Is midtown Manhattan an example of urban sprawl? It surely isn’t suburban sprawl. It is just built up urbanity. The problem of defining urban is one reason why city-to-city comparison becomes so onerous.

Whether it's called car-oriented urbanity or less urban, that's semantics.

It sounds like you're saying that on an urban issues board we shouldn't discuss urbanity in qualitative terms.

I reject the idea that newer cities can't build in urban ways. It's more of a challenge in some cases, and outward boundaries play a role (legislated or physical) but some newer cities are doing it. Step one is simply not requiring as much parking.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Two things are amusing in this discussion and perhaps inevitable whenever we get into a city versus city comparison.

1. The raw and the cooked problem. Some cities are clearly growing and in development; they are still figuratively in the oven or even getting ready to go into the oven. Other cities are cooked; they have been in development for decades, even centuries. Older style urbanists tend to look at these cooked cities as the standard for what is considered urban. Many older urban areas tend to have developed considerably before motorized transportation and particularly before the development of the piston engine as the supplier of motive power. Hence they are fairly compact. In addition, in many places they developed when the collective institutions of power (city hall, church, market, shops, public square) were within a non-motorized distance of most residents. In general those who live in such cooked places believe that their place defines urban. In contrast, particularly in the United States, new urbanization since the auto age, chiefly post WWII, produced a very different urban layout. This new urbanization was fueled by a complex combination of domestic migration, population growth, industrial decline, immigration and many other phenomena that make understanding the growth of the “newer cities” very difficult. No single variable or simple set of variables can explain the phenomenal and continuing growth of Atlanta, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, etc. But it is also clear that these cities are still cooking and show little sign of abating.
2. The definition of “urban” has become hopelessly entangled to the extent that the term is almost meaningless. Perhaps we should just jettison the term. When we try to clarify the meaning we use unfortunate terms. A favorite is the term “urban sprawl.” Is midtown Manhattan an example of urban sprawl? It surely isn’t suburban sprawl. It is just built up urbanity. The problem of defining urban is one reason why city-to-city comparison becomes so onerous.

A place like NYC benefits because it's geographically constrained. That adds to the already traditional urban nature of it.

It's not realistic to expect places to be able to imitate that.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by JManc

Atlanta has(had) this guy:

can't forget these too:

[urbanadvocate]

Originally Posted by One ATLien

I don't understand your thought process.. Help me out here.. Hip Hop was mentioned earlier as something Atlanta is known for culturally, and contributed in. You addressed the subject, then I replied to you to explain how its a bigger deal then you think it is, which it is btw, and I bought up that arguably the most popular genre in Hip Hop today is Trap music, which started out in Atlanta.. then you reply "and who gives two shits that trap music came from atlanta?" Whats your point? is there anything we have to give a shit about in that case? This is a thread about Atlanta after all isn't it? That's like someone commenting on a Nashville thread and mentioning How the city is well known for country music, and that's something they have contributed in culturally, then someone replying "and who gives two shits that Nashville is the center of the country music industry". Maybe you personally don't give a shit, but cant you be a little more objective here? It's clear from the beginning you didn't understand the scale of the Hip Hop Industry in Atlanta and its influence. And Obviously in the grand scheme of things one Sub-genre of music, isn't all that, Atlanta is known and contributed in a lot more things outside of music, but part of the conversation was culture, and Hip-Hop whether you like or not is a big part of it.

I apologize I think my response came across more callous than I intended. I don't want to down play the importance of hip hop to atlanta but i just don't buy that hip hop is synonymous to Atlanta like country is to nashville, jazz is to new orleans, gangsta rap to LA and grunge was to seattle in the 90s. Outside of the south are the majority of people gonna say yea atlanta is the center of current hip hop? maybe maybe not. i think it is very relevant to the identity of atlanta and its culture but i don't think it by an means creates an international identity for the city. hip hop is just too global with numerous cities claiming distinct styles.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by urbanadvocate

I apologize I think my response came across more callous than I intended. I don't want to down play the importance of hip hop to atlanta but i just don't buy that hip hop is synonymous to Atlanta like country is to nashville, jazz is to new orleans, gangsta rap to LA and grunge was to seattle in the 90s. Outside of the south are the majority of people gonna say yea atlanta is the center of current hip hop? maybe maybe not. i think it is very relevant to the identity of atlanta and its culture but i don't think it by an means creates an international identity for the city. hip hop is just too global with numerous cities claiming distinct styles.

In this respect, Cleveland was very smart by filling a void and establishing a Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. This gives the city a little more international recognition. More cities need to establish a niche on the international stage. Just one factor, but it is significant.

[lrt's friend]

dup post

[Omaharocks]

Originally Posted by mhays

Whether it's called car-oriented urbanity or less urban, that's semantics.

It sounds like you're saying that on an urban issues board we shouldn't discuss urbanity in qualitative terms.

I reject the idea that newer cities can't build in urban ways. It's more of a challenge in some cases, and outward boundaries play a role (legislated or physical) but some newer cities are doing it. Step one is simply not requiring as much parking.

mhays, i assume based on things you've written in the past that you're somehow involved in the development/planning world in Seattle. As am I, as a planning consultant. So I know you understand things are more complicated.

For one, Atlanta doesn't actually have parking requirements in areas such as midtown where the parking podiums get built, but developers often can't get financing from lenders without including it.

A couple very prominent high-rise condos in midtown are being built with zero parking, and the largest new research center is being built with only underground parking despite the costs of digging deep in granite bedrock. They've accomplished this through creative financing and sharing of surrounding parking decks/city decks, but it isn't a matter of there not being demand for parking-free high-rise living in Atlanta. There is, and I've seen just as many Atlanta residents clamoring for urban living as I've been seeing in Seattle or the other large metros on the west coast.

Few places have the city government resources of a Seattle or Portland. I know you'd like to think Seattle is fundamentally more progressive or pro-urban than Atlanta, but I don't think that's true. Places like Seattle, SF, Boston etc have the wealth in the city and the tax base to support huge municipal urban design and planning departments, that have the time and the staff to enact the codes and the policies to make developers build to a better standard. Atlanta is certainly moving in that direction though, and is in the process of re-writing all the zoning and enacting tighter design guidelines.

But taking out the major, wealthier, older urban metros, I don't see much difference in what's being built quality-wise across cities or regions.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In this respect, Cleveland was very smart by filling a void and establishing a Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. This gives the city a little more international recognition. More cities need to establish a niche on the international stage. Just one factor, but it is significant.

• Video Link


Cleveland Rocks!!,Cleveland Rocks!!,Cleveland Rocks!!,Cleveland Rocks!!,Cleveland Rocks!!,Cleveland Rocks!!,Cleveland Rocks!!....





The opening of the Drew Carey show.

That Rock and roll museum saved that town. It was the best thing that ever happened in that town since they put out the Cuyahoga River fire. For the last of the 8 times it caught on fire.

• Video Link


• Video Link

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

A couple very prominent high-rise condos in midtown are being built with zero parking,

I'm sorry, I don't believe it. I don't think you could even get financing without 1:1 parking provisions. Could you identify these parking-free condos?

Who would buy a home in Midtown Atlanta without at least one parking space per unit?