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

[dc_denizen]

Atlanta has relevance to me...I tried to read 'a man in full' once..

Originally Posted by mhays

I don't get why people care about that. Is it so reporters who don't know anything about cities will use these numbers to rank cities for other people who don't know anything about cities?

yes. and unfortunately such rankings actually shape people's opinions b/c we now live in a world where the only thing that matters is how many "likes" you get on social media.

(P.S. I've visited Atlanta a couple of times. Walked around quite a bit. Not my cup of tea living-there-wise but certainly enjoyed my visits. The area around Georgia Tech (Midtown?) is quite nice and walkable.)

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

My point being that New York annexed like crazy to retain its status as the largest city in the country.

Every major city has annexed adjacent areas as the population grew. This it not unique to New York at all. It's actually bad policy for urban growth that many states made it incredibly hard for cities to do this.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's actually bad policy for urban growth that many states made it incredibly hard for cities to do this.

Absolutely! Boston hasn't been legally allowed to annex for over 100 years, and it's a shame. 48 sq miles surrounded by dozens of cities 2 to 6 sq miles in size. So much redundancy in local government and services.

Totally unrelated, but I just learned Houston is almost exactly half the size of Rhode Island: 627 sq miles vs. 1,212 sq miles.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Every major city has annexed adjacent areas as the population grew. This it not unique to New York at all. It's actually bad policy for urban growth that many states made it incredibly hard for cities to do this.

A comment to the effect that some place would have to annex like crazy to catch New York was stated. It made it sound like New York is some tight compact area, which it isn't anymore. All I'm saying is New York did just that to get where it is today and help retain its status. What does Staten Island add to the city? It's just a far flung suburb there to help inflate the numbers. It's so bad that few places even routinely use the mailing address of New York outside Manhattan.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Absolutely! Boston hasn't been legally allowed to annex for over 100 years, and it's a shame. 48 sq miles surrounded by dozens of cities 2 to 6 sq miles in size. So much redundancy in local government and services.

Totally unrelated, but I just learned Houston is almost exactly half the size of Rhode Island: 627 sq miles vs. 1,212 sq miles.

Yeah but Houston has some open spaces, two airports (one airport is essentially not contiguous with the city) and at least two full fledged suburbs in the city limits, also not really contiguous with the rest of city. I'm not saying it's not large but the majority of the "city" is relatively compact.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Yeah but Houston has some open spaces, two airports (one airport is essentially not contiguous with the city) and at least two full fledged suburbs in the city limits, also not really contiguous with the rest of city. I'm not saying it's not large but the majority of the "city" is relatively compact.

Actually, it's not. Most major cities have airports in their city limits and Houston is just spread out everywhere even if it feels compact inside the loop in some areas.

Those suburbs are very contiguous with the rest of city...you would never know left Houston simply driving through that area. West U., Bellaire, Hedgewig Village all blend in with the rest Houston surrounding them.

[ThePhun1]

I disagree. I didn't say Houston wasn't sprawling but it's not quite as big as the 627 sq. mile figure would make it seem.

Those interior suburbs you mentioned aren't in the city limits. Clear Lake is and so is Kingwood and neither is particularly close to the city.

[MolsonExport]

so would annexation make Altanta reach NYC and LA levels?

administrative boundaries that magically change populations and perceptions?

Poor London, England. With its resident population of 9401 (wikipedia). It cannot aspire to greatness.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

A comment to the effect that some place would have to annex like crazy to catch New York was stated. It made it sound like New York is some tight compact area, which it isn't anymore. All I'm saying is New York did just that to get where it is today and help retain its status. What does Staten Island add to the city? It's just a far flung suburb there to help inflate the numbers. It's so bad that few places even routinely use the mailing address of New York outside Manhattan.

It is not the same. The New York region is the largest concentration of population in the U.S. This was true when NYC consolidated. New York did not consolidate in order to artificially trying to boost its stature.

A stunt would be if Detroit were to merge with it's three surrounding counties in order to create the nation's second largest city.

[SteveD]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

so would annexation make Altanta reach NYC and LA levels?

administrative boundaries that magically change populations and perceptions?

Poor London, England. With its resident population of 9401 (wikipedia). It cannot aspire to greatness.

Of course not but if the city limits were as small as the combination of DeKalb and Fulton counties it would be nearly 2 million. In fact it's been argued for years here locally that the city should be expanded to that, or, to areas inside of I-285.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

It made it sound like New York is some tight compact area, which it isn't anymore. All I'm saying is New York did just that to get where it is today and help retain its status.

NYC has very small physical city limits relative to urbanity. They haven't added an inch of land since the 19th century.

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

What does Staten Island add to the city?

Basically nothing. Absent Staten Island the city still has around 8 million people.

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

It's so bad that few places even routinely use the mailing address of New York outside Manhattan.

No places outside of Manhattan use "New York, NY". Not sure what this has to do with anything.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

I disagree. I didn't say Houston wasn't sprawling but it's not quite as big as the 627 sq. mile figure would make it seem.

Those interior suburbs you mentioned aren't in the city limits. Clear Lake is and so is Kingwood and neither is particularly close to the city.

But no city is as "big" as their total municipal boundary. They all have airports, some have military bases, water, mountains or some other geographical constraints to eat up space. Houston is no different but we are spread far and wide. I live in Kingwood...and work in the Medical Center. I sit in traffic for an hour and a half (each way) every damned day and never leave the city limits.

As for Rhode Island, its total area that Shawn provided includes a huge bay that cuts into about a 1/3rd of the state.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Absolutely! Boston hasn't been legally allowed to annex for over 100 years, and it's a shame. 48 sq miles surrounded by dozens of cities 2 to 6 sq miles in size. So much redundancy in local government and services.

Totally unrelated, but I just learned Houston is almost exactly half the size of Rhode Island: 627 sq miles vs. 1,212 sq miles.

People often compare San Francisco to Boston. I didn't realize the geographic area was so close. SF is 7x7=49 sq. miles.

As regards the rest of this converation, it is both a city and a country and hemmed in on 3 sides by water so unlikely to expand. The airport is outside the city limits. Aside from parks and other legally designated open space, some of which is on hills (yes), there's not a lot of unused ground in the city but there are some old space wasters that are being developed including Candlestock Point (site of the former footbal stadium) 2 old military bases at Treasure Island and Hunters Point, 2 former reservoirs and the former railyards at Mission Bay (which development is approaching completion). When these are all built out, there won't be a lot left that isn't built on so the next stage will be to tear down what's there and build higher.

[Tuckerman]

Actually there have been some minor and major annexations to Atlanta - most important was the Buckhead area which was annexed in 1952 and continues as a major financial and shopping district of the city. Currently the Emory University and the CDC have petitioned to be annexed to the City of Atlanta (notable because both institutions have used Atlanta as their address for years). This annexation will add a rich university and a large federal complex to the city, but few residences. In any case the City of Atlanta has only around 8% of the metro population and major corporate offices at the Perimeter are not in the city.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

People often compare San Francisco to Boston. I didn't realize the geographic area was so close. SF is 7x7=49 sq. miles.

When these are all built out, there won't be a lot left that isn't built on so the next stage will be to tear down what's there and build higher.

Or embark on landfill projects like was done in Manhattan and Boston. This day and age it's probably not possible though.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Or embark on landfill projects like was done in Manhattan and Boston. This day and age it's probably not possible though.

There will be no filling of San Francisco Bay. On the contrary, beyond the city in the South Bay where there are ponds that have been used for salt production for over a century, they are being restored as natural wetlands.

In the 1990s the airport, which needed a new runway (and still does), proposed building one into the Bay and the idea was soundly rejected.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SteveD

Of course not but if the city limits were as small as the combination of DeKalb and Fulton counties it would be nearly 2 million. In fact it's been argued for years here locally that the city should be expanded to that, or, to areas inside of I-285.

Just realized that Atlanta's land area is roughly the same size as both Philadelphia and Detroit. That is quite a bit of sprawl...

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

There will be no filling of San Francisco Bay. On the contrary, beyond the city in the South Bay where there are ponds that have been used for salt production for over a century, they are being restored as natural wetlands.

In the 1990s the airport, which needed a new runway (and still does), proposed building one into the Bay and the idea was soundly rejected.

Yeah it's nearly impossible today, but who knows what future may bring in 25-50 years.

Had NY not filled in Manhattan, WTC would not exist and Boston would have remained a quaint New England hamlet had it not filled in their waterways.

[Crawford]

Landfill is almost impossible in the modern day. There have been countless proposals for extending Manhattan into the Hudson and East River in recent decades, and there are too many environmental and regulatory hurdles.