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

[The North One]

Abysmal, a dramatic word no? It just leveled off.

Advances in technology like air conditioning allowed the sunbelt regions (like Pheonix) to explode when it was mostly kept bottled up. The country evened out and other regions caught up, that's all the ranking says.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by JManc

San Francisco, yes not because Lombard St and the trolleys are crammed with tourists and because of it's economic importance.

FIFY. International tourism should not be dismissed, especially if some on here are making the argument that Atlanta is world class because it's recognized internationally because of its hip hop scene. That being said, does Atlanta actually attract tourists from Korea? Tourism and economic importance is also intertwined. I've seen tour buses drop people off in front of Facebook's HQ just so people can take a picture with the thumbs up "Like" sign.

Back to the original question, if Atlanta wants to reach LA or NYC levels, it's going to have to draw tourists like LA and NYC do, which is not going to happen. However, while tourism is a significant factor, it's not the main one. Chicago is a world class city, but doesn't draw that many international visitors. So while Atlanta is never going to reach LA and NYC levels, I think Chicago status is the best they can dream for (aside from the skyline of course), and even that is a tall order.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

Even by that measure, Detroit's population trends are still pretty abysmal having falling from the 4th largest metro area to now the 14th largest.

But that's also not the point that was being made.

[skyscraperpage17]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But that's also not the point that was being made.

The point was intellectually dishonest, as we're not making apples to apples comparisons.

You can't say "Detroit" hasn't experienced a significant decline because its metro populaton hasn't changed while ignoring the fact that Detroit's metro population compared to other metro populations has significantly declined.

[ITB495]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Did you just compare Atlanta to Portland and Milwaukee? Those are all third-tier cities, Atlanta is a sure fire second-tier city. It's legitimately debatable whether it is a world class city or not.

Indeed, Atlanta is an important second-tier city in the United States. I used Portland and Milwaukee as a comparison based solely on population size—each is similar in that respect.

The original query wondered what it would take for Atlanta to become a first-tier city, a world-class metropolis. It seemed to me the overriding factors were size of population and density.

Atlanta has a lot going for it. It's a thriving city that continues to see a great deal of development. The city is steadily growing and is now approaching its previous population high of 495,039, set in 1970. If it keeps growing, Atlanta will increasing be the center of the south, even more so than now. Another quarter million in population may give the city the extra bustle to become what it really dreams to be—a true world-class city.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by ITB495

Indeed, Atlanta is an important second-tier city in the United States. I used Portland and Milwaukee as a comparison based solely on population size—each is similar in that respect.

The original query wondered what it would take for Atlanta to become a first-tier city, a world-class metropolis. It seemed to me the overriding factors were size of population and density.

Atlanta has a lot going for it. It's a thriving city that continues to see a great deal of development. The city is steadily growing and is now approaching its previous population high of 495,039, set in 1970. If it keeps growing, Atlanta will increasing be the center of the south, even more so than now. Another quarter million in population may give the city the extra bustle to become what it really dreams to be—a true world-class city.

Well Atlanta is, in reality, 150% bigger than Milwaukee and Portland combined. City limit population is irrelevant.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Well Atlanta is, in reality, 150% bigger than Milwaukee and Portland combined. City limit population is irrelevant.

Size isn't everything. Amsterdam is considered a global equal of Seoul, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Mumbai despite being one tenth the size.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Size isn't everything. Amsterdam is considered a global equal of Seoul, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Mumbai despite being one tenth the size.

I don't think you'll find too many people who would agree with such sentiments.

Amsterdam is a comparatively minor city, not a global megacity like the others.

[JManc]

I'm going to go with...no. Amsterdam is not a "minor" city. It's not London, Paris, New York or even Seoul but it punches well above its weight its size on a global scale.

[mhays]

It punches above its weight for tourism and cultural influence. But for anything else?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

I'm going to go with...no. Amsterdam is not a "minor" city. It's not London, Paris, New York or even Seoul but it punches well above its weight its size on a global scale.

I agree it punches above its weight, but the claim was that it was on the same level as a Sao Paulo or Seoul. I think most would disagree.

Amsterdam is maybe on the level of Hamburg, Prague or Seattle (and Seattle might be a half-step ahead these days). It's a sizable city with some importance, but not similar to the global megacities.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I agree it punches above its weight, but the claim was that it was on the same level as a Sao Paulo or Seoul. I think most would disagree.

Amsterdam is maybe on the level of Hamburg, Prague or Seattle (and Seattle might be a half-step ahead these days). It's a sizable city with some importance, but not similar to the global megacities.

It's not a "megacity" because the entirety of the Netherlands doesn't have the population but it is an "alpha" city on the same level as Sao Paulo or Seoul along with LA, Sydney, Frankfurt, Moscow, Toronto and so on as an important global cultural and economic center.

Are we sure we aren't talking about Rotterdam or the Hague?

..or Amsterdam NY

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

It's not a "megacity" because the entirety of the Netherlands doesn't have the population but it is an "alpha" city on the same level as Sao Paulo or Seoul along with LA, Sydney, Frankfurt, Moscow, Toronto and so on as an important global cultural and economic center.

To me, these cities are very different in relative importance. LA is one of the most important cities on the planet. Top 5, easily. Amsterdam wouldn't be in the Top 50. It might barely be Top 100.

Originally Posted by JManc

Are we sure we aren't talking about Rotterdam or the Hague?

Rotterdam is pretty much on Amsterdam's level. Not as as tourist center, obviously, but similar size, economy and, until recently, the most important port anywhere on the planet.

[JManc]

Personally, I think LA should be bumped up a notch...because I agree, it's global impact is huge...that is until everyone in Hollywood is implicated for sexual abuse...but I'm going on what I researched but I totally disagree about Amsterdam. This is insinuating that it is on the level of Cincinnati. It's one of the most important economic centers in the largest economic union in the world.

[ThePhun1]

Amsterdam has historic value but come on, it's a relative lightweight internationally.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think you'll find too many people who would agree with such sentiments.

Amsterdam is a comparatively minor city, not a global megacity like the others.

There are reputable international organizations which study this precise thing that have those cities in the same tier. Whether more than 50% of the world's population disagrees we don't know because no global survey has ever been done asking this precise question. Think tanks are just the opinion of an organization but their findings usually hold some credibility. They've done research and usually employ people who specialize in the subject matter.

Of course you don't have to agree with their findings. I don't agree with all of it but my point stands: size isn't everything.




Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_World_Cities_Research_Network

[DMPHL]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Amsterdam has historic value but come on, it's a relative lightweight internationally.

It's MUCH more of a heavy weight globally than Atlanta.

In seriousness, Amsterdam is one of the biggest economic centers in Europe, the fourth largest port in Europe, home to 7 of the 500 biggest companies in the world with significant presences of many other global companies.

Its economic and cultural ties the USA aren't as strong which I think colors a lot of people's perceptions about it. But its economic ties to the rest of Europe, to Asia and the Indian sub-continent, the Middle East and Africa are quite strong.

That is directly a result of the "historic value" of its centuries-old global economic ambitions, and the deep roots it's grown around the world.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

Amsterdam has historic value but come on, it's a relative lightweight internationally.

Just no. There are several IAH to Schiphol daily fights. Get on one and go visit Amsterdam. There's a lot more to it than tulips, Heineken, Van Gogh, hookers and hash.

[maru2501]

does this mean London comes down a rung after Brexit?

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by maru2501

does this mean London comes down a rung after Brexit?

Probably. Is the money going to move to Dublin?