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

[DMPHL]

Originally Posted by mhays

San Francisco is 8,000,000, not 800,000.

London's 1990s population of 10,000 (pre-merger) wasn't a limit either. They always got to count the whole metro equivalent.

SF has about 870,000 within its actual city limits. About 4.6 million in its metro, and about 8.5 million in its CSA, which stretches from the southern tip of Santa Clara County to the north of Santa Rosa, and from the ocean east to Stockton-Lodi.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Population growth need not maketh a global city.

In Chicago’s case: a better built environment (not only buildings but infrastructure investments), an expanded and more cohesive, walkable downtown with higher paying jobs, an enhanced dining and entertainment scene, etc is how you “grow” without growing.

I think too many people are making the mistake of quantifying cities’ success and importance by sheer population levels. It’s a stat of some importance, for sure, but it way way misses the mark on so many elements.

A good analogy is the brain. Sheer brain size is only a gross estimation of intelligence. The most intelligent animals, however, have heavily convoluted brains. Increased surface area, increased complexity.

The complexity and richness of a city makes it more valuable to the world. That’s why San Francisco, a mere 800-ish thousand, is ranked among top tier cities despite its low population. Sunbelt cities are nowhere near having this and are probably never going to achieve this based on their extreme auto-orientation.

Sure, but Atlanta needs that population growth in order to densify. Chicago, SF, NYC, and LA don't need population growth because they already had it 100 years ago and it came in the form of dense urban development. They're called legacy or mature cities for a reason.

Atlanta is not a mature city. It lost about 50+ years of consistent urban dense growth due to white flight, suburbanization, and other factors like most American cities.

[The North One]

I don't know how you expect a city with no grid to densify, Atlanta has cul de sacs right next to the CBD. Houston and Dallas have grids, that's why they're dense and they're not older. Atlanta is built like a giant 00's subdivision, population isn't the problem.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by The North One

I don't know how you expect a city with no grid to densify, Atlanta has cul de sacs right next to the CBD. Houston and Dallas have grids, that's why they're dense and they're not older. Atlanta is built like a giant 00's subdivision, population isn't the problem.

Can we stop this notion that you have to have a grid to be a dense city? IMO, small street widths are more important factors than a grid.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by The North One

I don't know how you expect a city with no grid to densify, Atlanta has cul de sacs right next to the CBD. Houston and Dallas have grids, that's why they're dense and they're not older. Atlanta is built like a giant 00's subdivision, population isn't the problem.

London and Boston don't have grids, both are extremely dense cities. Barcelona doesn't a grid, it's extremely dense. Rome has no grid, it's extremely dense.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Can we stop this notion that you have to have a grid to be a dense city? IMO, small street widths are more important factors than a grid.

He frequently expresses irrational hatred of Atlanta (which he's entitled to do). You're probably not going to convince him otherwise, so just ignore him.

[ue]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

London and Boston don't have grids, both are extremely dense cities. Barcelona doesn't a grid, it's extremely dense. Rome has no grid, it's extremely dense.

Outside of the Gothic Quarter environs, Barcelona is absolutely a grid (much like New York is outside of Downtown Manhattan).

But yeah, you don't need a grid to have density. However, you do need connectivity, which isn't provided by inefficient road designs, such as the loops and lollipops of Atlanta. The Old World cities that lack a street grid still have an efficient road network based on their organic growth, and still make sense from a walkability and densification perspective. That being said, Atlanta's cul de sacs aren't "right next" to the CBD, based on looking at maps. But, it does have problems present in modern urban design (that aren't unique to Atlanta), like this and this instead of designing stuff that looks like this or this.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Tuckerman

Prediction, over the next 5 decades: NYC will remain the dominant North American city in most every category\

No American city will catch NYC in population during any of our lifetimes without some type of stunt (annexation) or catastrophe. But some of us may see LA overtake New York as the largest metropolitan area.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by DMPHL

SF has about 870,000 within its actual city limits. About 4.6 million in its metro, and about 8.5 million in its CSA, which stretches from the southern tip of Santa Clara County to the north of Santa Rosa, and from the ocean east to Stockton-Lodi.

Who cares about arbitrary city-limits?

As for metros, SF's true metro area (AKA the nine-county SF Bay Area, which is divided into five different MSAs...lol good job census ) is a lot loser to the CSA numbers (which encompasses seven MSAs) than it is to the MSA numbers. MSA methodology simply doesn't play well with the development patterns of geographically constrained and multi-nodal regions, and in the case of SF gives an inaccurate result that doesn't reflect the reality of how life works on the ground. The CSA number isn't perfect though, and includes a little too much to be used as a synonym for "the Bay Area" (San Joaquin, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties aren't part of the bay area by most people's definition...yet, at least).

Annoying how this conversation has to be repeated in every other thread where metro areas are mentioned.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by tech12

Who cares about arbitrary city-limits?

The media, the federal / state government, segregationists, retailers, etc.

[Ant131531]

Originally Posted by ue

Outside of the Gothic Quarter environs, Barcelona is absolutely a grid (much like New York is outside of Downtown Manhattan).

But yeah, you don't need a grid to have density. However, you do need connectivity, which isn't provided by inefficient road designs, such as the loops and lollipops of Atlanta. The Old World cities that lack a street grid still have an efficient road network based on their organic growth, and still make sense from a walkability and densification perspective. That being said, Atlanta's cul de sacs aren't "right next" to the CBD, based on looking at maps. But, it does have problems present in modern urban design (that aren't unique to Atlanta), like this and this instead of designing stuff that looks like this or this.

Meh, every city has terrible areas as far as urban design in America and that includes places like NYC, SF, Chicago as well.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

The media, the federal / state government, segregationists, retailers, etc.

would you say that Austin and Columbus are bigger cities than Washington DC and Boston, because the city limits say so? All of those suburbs mean absolutely nothing? lol

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by tech12

would you say that Austin and Columbus are bigger cities than Washington DC and Boston, because the city limits say so? All of those suburbs mean absolutely nothing? lol

I get and agree with your overall point, but I wouldn't say no one cares about city boundaries either. They serve a purpose for some interests.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

He frequently expresses irrational hatred of Atlanta (which he's entitled to do). You're probably not going to convince him otherwise, so just ignore him.

I have no opinion either way, Atlanta has no relevance in my life.

It's a fact that Atlanta has no grid, It's a fact that it's one of the least densely populated metro's in the world besides cities like Anchorage. The topic is about Atlanta and this is an urban/architecture enthusiast forum.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

London and Boston don't have grids, both are extremely dense cities. Barcelona doesn't a grid, it's extremely dense. Rome has no grid, it's extremely dense.

Ancient cities in Europe and old colonial cities were built in a time before cars existed, they have narrow streets and high-density development. It's completely incomparable to cities that aren't even two-hundred years old like Atlanta. A cul de sac in North America isn't going to suddenly start churning out development the likes of Rome or central Paris, that's not possible and would never happen even if policy allowed it.

Also, Barcelona has a pretty obvious grid.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by The North One

I have no opinion either way, Atlanta has no relevance in my life.

And yet, you went out of your way to come into this thread and bash it.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by The North One

Ancient cities in Europe and old colonial cities were built in a time before cars existed, they have narrow streets and high-density development. It's completely incomparable to cities that aren't even two-hundred years old like Atlanta. A cul de sac in North America isn't going to suddenly start churning out development the likes of Rome or central Paris, that's not possible and would never happen even if policy allowed it.

Also, Barcelona has a pretty obvious grid.

"Modern" Barcelona is a grid. The Gothic Quarter is not. I do wonder what Atlanta would be like had the Union not burned to the ground. I guess you could say the same about Chicago its fire and SF and its earthquake.

[tdawg]

The North One seems to have a chip on his/her shoulder for some reason about Atlanta. There is, in fact, a street grid in downtown and midtown Atlanta and a simple Google Maps search would reveal as such. It's not Manhattan but there is a grid. And the city is densifying at a remarkable rate.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by tdawg

The North One seems to have a chip on his/her shoulder for some reason about Atlanta. There is, in fact, a street grid in downtown and midtown Atlanta and a simple Google Maps search would reveal as such. It's not Manhattan but there is a grid. And the city is densifying at a remarkable rate.

I understand that Atlanta won't be everyone's cup of tea (or it truly isn't relevant to some, such as folks who live outside the US), but Atlanta does seems to get a disproportionate amount of hate for the silliest reasons.

Yeah, Atlanta has bad traffic. Big fucking deal. Chicago, DC, Los Angeles, etc. all have even worse traffic, yet people don't use it to define their cities and bash them for it. Yeah, Atlanta has sprawl. Again, big fucking deal. Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, etc. have just as much or even worse sprawl, yet people don't use it to define their cities and bash them for it.

The main ones that seem to go out of their way to bash it fall into two categories:

1. They're from the big cities in the NE (Boston, NYC, DC, etc.).

2. They're from Rust Belt cities / states.

As far as those who fall into group #2, I can only figure it's jealousy. Atlanta works ("work" meaning economically vibrant and growing) while the big cities in their state (for the most part) do not. Hell, half of the natives from the big city in North One's state are living in Atlanta right now, so it must be doing something right.

[pdxtex]

at this point atlanta has too much competition. 100 years ago, we only had a handful of destination big cities. these days, we have 20 plus metros over 3 million, each experiencing positive population growth. we will see a common ascension among all of the the big metros but the days of mass immigration are over. now were just shuffling deck chairs around.