Southern cities with a "big city" feel?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

^ I would not compare downtown Atlanta to downtown San Francisco, but I also wouldn't say downtown Atlanta is sterile - it's maybe the least sterile of the sunbelt sprawlers.

I would. Overall, Atlanta can't compare to San Francisco in street activity but their downtowns seemed more or less the same. I walked around downtown SF after work hours and it was rather subdued. A few blocks north/west/south of it was a totally different story.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by Omaharocks

^ I would not compare downtown Atlanta to downtown San Francisco, but I also wouldn't say downtown Atlanta is sterile - it's maybe the least sterile of the sunbelt sprawlers.

The heart of downtown Atlanta is around Woodruff Park, which has lots of pedestrian activity during the day from downtown works and students at GSU: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7563...7i16384!8i8192

I agree.

Downtown Atlanta is hardly sterile especially the traditional core section which is the area around Five Points (Peachtree /Marietta /Decatur /Edgewood streets) and southward. Up until the mid 2000s (most certainly in the 1990s and before), this area was the heart of activity in Downtown Atlanta and in many ways more livelier than anything in current expanded Downtown Atlanta area that includes Peachtree Center and Centennial Olympic Park where the activity center has shifted and expanded toward.

Even the Centennial Olympic Park (COP) area used to be abandoned and under-utilized buildings and warehouses until the 1990s which made it easier for the city and Coca-Cola to acquire, re-imagine, demolished, re-invent before the 1996 Olympics. Now the COP area of Downtown Atlanta along with Peachtree Center (which both caters to the occasional visitors and conventioneers) is the most clean or polished area of Downtown Atlanta. But for people who live in Atlanta, and remembers the traditional core, and still experience the traditional core - it's hard, even impossible to categorize it as sterile.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Segun

I'd say the N.O. is the most urban overall, but I wouldn't say it gives much of a BIG city experience. You only have a trickle of people coming into the downtown that aren't already staying there and streets aren't teeming with cars going from one place to another, nor is transit used much.
.

That's a very good point - I love the urbanity of NOLA but it really doesn't feel like a big city. It reminds me bit of the central but outside of downtown neighbourhoods in Toronto, just all over the place. Downtown itself is pretty quiet when I've been through (usually biking up/downriver).

The first pic of gigantic scale Atlanta reminds me a fair bit of the main perimeter roads in Rosebank and Sandton in Joburg (the big suburban nodes, with underground Gautrain stops):

https://goo.gl/maps/2wNE385w6qJoSgpX9
https://goo.gl/maps/85k8e5irxxrQcPzj9

[TexasPlaya]

Talking Sun Belt Sprawelers' downtowns then Austin over ATL. Both have universities and state governments adjacent/in downtown, but Austin's university and government is larger.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Talking Sun Belt Sprawelers' downtowns then Austin over ATL. Both have universities and state governments adjacent/in downtown, but Austin's university and government is larger.

Atlanta is the only Southern city with a functional rapid transit system though (maybe Miami counts too, I don't know, the coverage of Miami's rapid transit seems super crappy).

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Atlanta is the only Southern city with a functional rapid transit system though (maybe Miami counts too, I don't know, the coverage of Miami's rapid transit seems super crappy).

And yet Austin's downtown has more activity in the context of sunbelt sprawlers' downtowns.

I'm not sure what the bolded means. It has the largest total ridership in the south (excluding DC) but its not head and shoulders over DFW and Houston in terms of ridership. I suppose you could put it in its own southern tier.

[L41A]

Perimeter Center is not in the city of Atlanta. It's in Dunwoody, in DeKalb County, outside of the Perimeter (285).

But I do agree (despite perception by many), Atlanta can be characterized by its smallish winding streets - even more so than having really big streets. Peachtree Road in Buckhead (depicted in your post below) is probably the biggest in the city along with Piedmont Road also in Buckhead. The only other big multi-directional street comparable in size to those two in the city of Atlanta is the Northside Drive section in West Midtown to Downtown near Mercedes Benz Stadium.

Originally Posted by Segun

ATL has reached that level where, like LA, the traffic has begun to define the city. Outside of the big streets, ATL has unusually narrow arterial roads too, for such a car-oriented city. These narrow, winding, country-looking roads have inner city traffic through the evening. It's hard to describe, but it feels something other than suburban. Also, there are some hidden blocks of low-strung commercial areas that feel pleasant and are very walkable.

Small scale Atlanta
Highland https://goo.gl/maps/VsmvGfKnMT7pT9Up7
Flat Shoals https://goo.gl/maps/JQFk4DTVsoXzTAfP8

Gigantic scale Atlanta
Buckhead Village (W subway stop) https://goo.gl/maps/m5qU5QyLx6B2yvW9A
Perimeter Center (also W subway stop)
https://goo.gl/maps/PBSLwiPK87WNAGFG6

I don't know the areas you're referring to in Josie, but I have seen footage of Sandtown, and it does have a Buckhead-esque look to it.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Atlanta is the only Southern city with a functional rapid transit system though (maybe Miami counts too, I don't know, the coverage of Miami's rapid transit seems super crappy).

Charlotte has a rapid-transit line too.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by JManc

I would. Overall, Atlanta can't compare to San Francisco in street activity but their downtowns seemed more or less the same. I walked around downtown SF after work hours and it was rather subdued. A few blocks north/west/south of it was a totally different story.

And therein lies the difference. It is a BIG difference.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by L41A

I agree.

Downtown Atlanta is hardly sterile especially the traditional core section which is the area around Five Points (Peachtree /Marietta /Decatur /Edgewood streets) and southward. Up until the mid 2000s (most certainly in the 1990s and before), this area was the heart of activity in Downtown Atlanta and in many ways more livelier than anything in current expanded Downtown Atlanta area that includes Peachtree Center and Centennial Olympic Park where the activity center has shifted and expanded toward.

Even the Centennial Olympic Park (COP) area used to be abandoned and under-utilized buildings and warehouses until the 1990s which made it easier for the city and Coca-Cola to acquire, re-imagine, demolished, re-invent before the 1996 Olympics. Now the COP area of Downtown Atlanta along with Peachtree Center (which both caters to the occasional visitors and conventioneers) is the most clean or polished area of Downtown Atlanta. But for people who live in Atlanta, and remembers the traditional core, and still experience the traditional core - it's hard, even impossible to categorize it as sterile.

I have some Atlanta bonafides. Lots of family in area since before 1900. My father was born there in 1900. His brother operated a large jewelry store on Forsyth St. near Five Points in downtown until the 1960s or 70s. My relatives also operated catalog discount stores (Ellman's) in the Atlanta area until the 90s. I lived there for a while in the 90s and still visit sometimes. Downtown Atlanta is a snooze for the most part. It has improved a lot, but it is still a place most people avoid after dark and has not developed much as a residential area as compared to Midtown.

[Centropolis]

atlanta is interesting, and has perhaps the best location in the south, certainly the best climate in my opinion. hotlanta is a silly moniker for such a mild city.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by JManc

I would. Overall, Atlanta can't compare to San Francisco in street activity but their downtowns seemed more or less the same. I walked around downtown SF after work hours and it was rather subdued. A few blocks north/west/south of it was a totally different story.

I gotta agree. The financial district in SF never seems as bustling as it appears from the distance.
It's when you get into the shopping areas that's almost NYC like.

[edale]

Originally Posted by LA21st

It's when you get into the shopping areas that's almost NYC like.

Definitely. If Union Square and the surrounding shopping district is included in "Downtown SF" then it absolutely is in a different league than Atlanta and the Texas cities. The crowds on the streets in that part of the city might exceed every other city in the US not named NY. I think it feels busier and more lively than even any part of Chicago, which is impressive.

[iheartthed]

I guess just looking at architectural aesthetics alone, I could see the resemblance between SF and ATL. Also the BART trains look like the MARTA trains. But I think the resemblances stop about there.

Originally Posted by edale

Definitely. If Union Square and the surrounding shopping district is included in "Downtown SF" then it absolutely is in a different league than Atlanta and the Houston cities. The crowds on the streets in that part of the city might exceed every other city in the US not named NY. I think it feels busier and more lively than even any part of Chicago, which is impressive.

I think SF is pretty even with Chicago. SF reminds me (vaguely) of Chicago more than any other city in the U.S.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think SF is pretty even with Chicago. SF reminds me (vaguely) of Chicago more than any other city in the U.S.

Agreed. Chicago is pretty lively even when it's -100 in January.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I guess just looking at architectural aesthetics alone, I could see the resemblance between SF and ATL. Also the BART trains look like the MARTA trains. But I think the resemblances stop about there.



I think SF is pretty even with Chicago. SF reminds me (vaguely) of Chicago more than any other city in the U.S.

I can certainly draw a lot of analogies:
Union Square ~= Mag Mile
Pier 39 ~= Navy Pier
SoMa ~= West Loop
Pac Heights ~= Gold Coast
Golden Gate Park ~= Museum Campus
Market St ~= State St
Mission ~= Pilsen

[L41A]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I have some Atlanta bonafides. Lots of family in area since before 1900. My father was born there in 1900. His brother operated a large jewelry store on Forsyth St. near Five Points in downtown until the 1960s or 70s. My relatives also operated catalog discount stores (Ellman's) in the Atlanta area until the 90s. I lived there for a while in the 90s and still visit sometimes. Downtown Atlanta is a snooze for the most part. It has improved a lot, but it is still a place most people avoid after dark and has not developed much as a residential area as compared to Midtown.

When I quoted Omaharocks, I spoke specifically agreeing with his response on your use of the term "sterile". I questioned it so much that I looked up different meanings of the word "sterile" before I responded. I didn't really speak so much on vibrancy of Downtown Atlanta per se.

I can recognize that you lived in Atlanta but you could not have visited/frequented the area of Five Points in the 1990s and describe it as "sterile". Even today, I wouldn't describe it as sterile.

That area is very worn. And in the 1990s, it was teeming with commuters, street vendors, pandhandlers, street preachers, hustlers, office workers, etc. And at night, Underground Atlanta was still quite active with bars and restaurants such as Fat Tuesday's and Dante Down the Hatch. And as a person working in banking in the area in the 1990s, Underground Atlanta catered to workers during the day with other sit-down restaurants such as Mick's, Lombardi's, Ruby Tuesday, etc. which we actually visited for more formal/long/networking lunches.

And now, I find it hard to reasoned with this new term that you inexplicably have introduced - "improved" - especially in the area of vibrancy and in the context of Five Points area. That area is still worn, even more so than 1990s. And with the re-location of the banks, city newspaper, Federal Reserve, city policymaking, etc -- it is certainly less vibrant.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by edale

Definitely. If Union Square and the surrounding shopping district is included in "Downtown SF" then it absolutely is in a different league than Atlanta and the Houston cities. The crowds on the streets in that part of the city might exceed every other city in the US not named NY. I think it feels busier and more lively than even any part of Chicago, which is impressive.

I felt Union Square area was more chaotic than anywhere in Chicago. Only Manhattan felt more nuts. Well, Vegas, butt that's a different ball game.

NYC
SF/Vegas (sort of)
Chicago
Boston/Philly

[ChiMIchael]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I can certainly draw a lot of analogies:
Union Square ~= Mag Mile
Pier 39 ~= Navy Pier
SoMa ~= West Loop
Pac Heights ~= Gold Coast
Golden Gate Park ~= Museum Campus
Market St ~= State St
Mission ~= Pilsen

I would compare Golden Gate Park to Lincoln Park but even then Golden Gate >>>>>>.

The Museum Campus is more comparable to the area around Van Ness and I think McAllister from my experience.

[3rd&Brown]

IMO, as someone who visits both Atlanta and Miami frequently, they're the only 2 cities (apart from New Orleans) that come close to having the street level vibrancy of any northern urban city.

For me, Atlanta takes the #1 spot more than anything because you can visit without a car and not be overly reliant on uber/lyft. Marta is a pretty good rapid transit system that doesn't feel gimicky and goes where you want it to from the airport (Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead, etc). More importantly, Atlanta is just filling in in all the right ways. I see a time when the entire area from Piedmont Park west to "West" Midtown (through Georgia Tech and Atlantic Station) is pretty much urban infill. And it's not that far away. Generally when I go, I stay in Midtown and I can generally walk most places without an uber. On top of that, there are just a lot of interesting nodes of activity that have urbanity in and of themselves that continue to fill in, from East Atlanta Village to Cabbagetown to the West End, etc.

I really like what Atlanta is becoming. I could easily live there (inside the perimeter, of course).

Houston and Dallas are impressive in their own right. But there is little to no street level vibrancy and too much single family development in or near the core. I haven't been to Austin, but I sense it's developing in a more urban manner, but we'll see.

Everything about Nashville screams gimick to me. It's a beautiful city...don't get me wrong, but the street life that does exist is centered on tourists and very little of it is authentic urbanity. I guess I wouldn't expect much more from a city who's ruling class is Southern Baptist.