Is Atlanta the most important city in the South?

[R1070]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I took this photo a few years ago in suburban Dallas.

You'll see that in any of the big Texas metros. I was thinking of people saying that actual Dallas has cattle and cowboy hats.

In Texas if you throw some animals on your vacant lot, you are tax exempt. You'll even see some longhorn cattle in fields around Plano, Frisco, etc. to keep the land from being taxed before developments are constructed.

[Doug]

I lived in Dallas as a kid. I realize that Texas is a distinct region, but the Dallas area seemed to have some midwestern influences (flat, agriculture and manufacturing, wholesale commerce, finance) despite its historical connection to the cotton industry. Dallas seems to be the only true "self invented" city outside the west in that it doesn't really have any geographical advantages. It grew because it attracted a disproportionate share of big dreamers. So maybe it has some western influence as well.

I do agree that Atlanta is the most important city in what is indisputably "the South".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Sure, but the character of the city itself vis-a-vis the built and natural environment was strongly determined by its exact physical location in between the three largest population centers of the Republic (San Antonio, Houston*, and Dallas): at the point where the largest river in the Texas Hill Country exits into the coastal floodplain akin to an eastern Fall Line city. A river which, at the time, was believed to be eventually navigable as far north as Austin with improvements and some stretches of canal (one of only a handful of Texan rivers that could have, in theory, at the time, been made navigable for industry and goods transport). That didn't pan out, of course, but Austin still takes heavy cues from its unique physical geography within the state of Texas. You literally cannot move this city 25 miles in any direction and get the same type of city build, with the same cultural attaches that develop from your natural and built city environments. You may very well still have the state capitol building and flagship university, but everything else would be very very very different indeed. And that's pj3000's point about places like Pittsburgh, or San Francisco, or New York City, is that if you move them anywhere they'd just fundamentally not look, feel, or function, the same way.


*In the only census the Republic ever took, Houston was larger than Galveston. During the Republic period, some estimates put it at nearly 1 in 8 dying from a yellow fever outbreak in Houston bringing Galveston back ahead of Houston. Of course, had the Archive Wars turned out differently, Houston would be the capital of Texas today, not Austin.

Again, I'm not sure I completely agree with that. I mean, sure, move any city to another location and it would develop differently. But I think the point here was which cities couldn't be moved. Move NYC somewhere else in an alternate timeline, and another big city will get built at the mouth of the Hudson to receive Erie Canal-brought Great Lakes goods, and THAT city will have taken NYC's spot for all intents and purposes (hell, that city will actually *be* NYC.)

Move New Orleans somewhere else, and another city will show up at the mouth of the Mississippi, and that city will develop into the new New Orleans.

Move Miami to some other location, and the largest city in Florida in this alternate timeline will be located where the warmest winters are on the Atlantic coast at the southernmost solid soil point of the coast - just won't be named Miami.

etc.

Move Austin, and there won't be an Austin-caliber city at all in Austin's current location. But there will be a city that suspiciously looks like today's Austin, in whatever different location got the state capital and the flagship university.

That's the point.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I took this photo a few years ago in suburban Dallas.

definitely a plains-city thing.

a simple combination of grazing country + large core municipal borders. kansas city has this too on its northside where the muni boundaries leapfrogged way over the edge of sprawl to capture the airport.

but even east coast cities had things like this within the 20th century.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by lio45

Again, I'm not sure I completely agree with that. I mean, sure, move any city to another location and it would develop differently. But I think the point here was which cities couldn't be moved. Move NYC somewhere else in an alternate timeline, and another big city will get built at the mouth of the Hudson to receive Erie Canal-brought Great Lakes goods, and THAT city will have taken NYC's spot for all intents and purposes (hell, that city will actually *be* NYC.)

Move New Orleans somewhere else, and another city will show up at the mouth of the Mississippi, and that city will develop into the new New Orleans.

Move Miami to some other location, and the largest city in Florida in this alternate timeline will be located where the warmest winters are on the Atlantic coast at the southernmost solid soil point of the coast - just won't be named Miami.

etc.

Move Austin, and there won't be an Austin-caliber city at all in Austin's current location. But there will be a city that suspiciously looks like today's Austin, in whatever different location got the state capital and the flagship university.

That's the point.

Yeah, these are good points. Plenty of different ways to look at this, and there are obviously no hard and fast rules... which leads to interesting and informed discussion (I end up learning a lot about different places from good contributions of info from people on here). I think I was initially talking about a city's natural setting/features, and how they were the reason for a city's existence and development... how cities usually follow this pattern, though some do not.

And in that way, most major cities had to be there. There is that compelling natural-surroundings reason... to such an extent that the city and its natural environment are one and the same. Of course, this exists on a spectrum -- with some locations being that much more identifiable with the city (and vice versa), and other locations simply as an obvious "good place" for a city. Like you say, certain cities couldn't be moved and still remain the same city... others (like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston... though Houston is a good bit more fuzzy, as I thought about it and others contributed good info) absolutely could be because the natural location attributes are not necessarily advantageous nor unique.

As you point out above, I think that the "test" of whether or not another major city would pop up in a certain location due to the natural attributes is a really good indicator.

...

Regarding Austin, I think that the natural location is the reason for the city's existence, as the spot has been occupied for thousands of years due to its water resources and protection provided by the hills to the west. Though it likely falls in that "good place for a city" category, rather than the "a city had to be here" category. Like you mention, without the state capital and university chosen to be there for political (not natural) reasons, there is no Austin as we know it there.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by R1070

You'll see that in any of the big Texas metros. I was thinking of people saying that actual Dallas has cattle and cowboy hats.

I've seen tons of guys wearing cowboy hats in "actual" Dallas. I used to work downtown, and I had colleagues in my office who wore them to work. They didn't wear them while in the office obviously, but it was just part of the fashion/culture, like how men wore tophats, bowlers, fedoras, berets, etc. And it wasn't a rare thing. Dallas is a major regional hub for a very large area of the country in which guys who identify with the cowboy ethos/history of the place.

I knew a lot of Dallasites who acted like it was some denigrating characteristic, as a gauche display to be rather embarrassed about, but I always though it was pretty cool. It's just a fashion choice, that happens to be a somewhat unique part of the history of the region.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

definitely a plains-city thing.

a simple combination of grazing country + large core municipal borders. kansas city has this too on its northside where the muni boundaries leapfrogged way over the edge of sprawl to capture the airport.

but even east coast cities had things like this within the 20th century.

In Pittsburgh, I live 3.5 miles from Downtown. There is a small cattle ranch and a horse farm less than a mile from my house.

Pittsburgh is weird because of the extreme topography, and you'll find rather rural areas in very close proximity to densely-developed urban ones. But like you mention, there are agriculutral areas in pretty close proximity to cities throughout the northeast.

[Stratosphere 2020]

Without a doubt Atlanta is the most important and influential city of the South. It is considered the black mecca of The United States, unofficial capital of black America. It is very diverse metro with folks from all over the World. It has relative to population the 3rd largest LGTB community in the US.

It has big influences in American movie production and entertainment (including Tyler Perry Studios), music (mainly R&B), corporate/business, media (CNN headquarters), the birthplace of civil rights (Martin Luther King), the biggest air hub in the world home the World's biggest airlines (Delta), a host of great global events ( including the Centennial Olympic Games), and now influences U.S. politics (it has played a big role in determining America's direction for the next 4 years). It is a booming city that is still changing rapidly with the city of Atlanta passing a half a million citizens in 2020 for the first time.

The city has a particular radiance of power and class that shows.
• Video Link

[L41A]

Repeating and Repeating stuff does not make it true.
And I know its customary on this forum by some to always try to put Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston in the same box, or the Sun Belt, or the South, etc and then dive and dig into your stereotypes, prejudices, and perceptions to make them true to yourself.

Atlanta is located where it is in Georgia because it is in the Piedmont (which is by the way a "geographical feature".

It is located where it is in the Piedmont precisely because it is not on the Fall Line (which is another "geographical feature"). It is located in the Piedmont precisely because it is not in the Coastal Plain (which is another "geographical feature').

You don't even have to wonder or hypothesized much how Atlanta would function/developed if it was "PUT" in those other geographical features which are about 100 miles away. Why? Because they are places that were already "PUT' there in the same period (1800s) that would give you a glimpse at how it would function/develop.

For that glimpse, in the Georgia Coastal Plan, there are hundreds of towns and cities that where 'put' there to support the agricultural then manufacturing economy of that region.

For that glimpse, on the Fall Line, there are Columbus, Macon, and Augusta which were 'put' there because of not only being on the Fall Line - but on another geographical feature, a river at a point where the river's navigable part end/begin.

And if it was 'put' 100 miles in any other direction, it would be in the mountains or another state where again you wouldn't have to hypothesize much because major towns that are ‘put’ there.

And for looks and feel, even by driving on a roadway designed for speed and volume like I-75, you can almost feel yourself gradually going up in elevation when traveling south to north - not to mention the straightness to hills and curves of the roadway.


All I did initially was just agreed on trees and hills aspect of Atlanta because its noticeable to me especially when comparing it to places to the south. Oh but no, someone deemed that as saying something affirming for Atlanta and reply with snide remarks. And I could care less, if folk on this forum like Atlanta. In fact, I'm glad you don't because if many like you did, it would possibly change the character of Atlanta and one of the main reasons why I love Atlanta.

[iheartthed]

It's interesting how the big cities in the southeast (excluding Miami) are inland compared to the big cities in the northeast all being on the coast. If the southeast followed the pattern of the northeast then you would expect Charleston and Savannah, or Charleston and Wilmington, would be the big cities instead of Charlotte and Atlanta. In a northeast context, it would be as if Springfield was the big city over Boston, or Harrisburg over Philadelphia. I'm guessing it has something to do with Charleston (and the southeast) not transitioning to an industrial economy before the Civil War like the northeast cities.

[L41A]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's interesting how the big cities in the southeast (excluding Miami) are inland compared to the big cities in the northeast all being on the coast. If the southeast followed the pattern of the northeast then you would expect Charleston and Savannah, or Charleston and Wilmington, would be the big cities instead of Charlotte and Atlanta. In a northeast context, it would be as if Springfield was the big city over Boston, or Harrisburg over Philadelphia. I'm guessing it has something to do with Charleston (and the southeast) not transitioning to an industrial economy before the Civil War like the northeast cities.

Many cities in East were developed along the Fall Line : Montgomery AL, Augusta GA, Columbia SC, Raleigh NC, Richmond VA, Baltimore, etc.

In the SE, the Fall Line is just more inland. Significantly, cities were formed on the Fall Line because they where at locations on/near a river where the river became less navigable. Above the Fall Line, the rivers are less navigable (narrower, rockier, shallower, and faster flow) and goods were not able to be transported. Thus the rail hubs (like Atlanta) in the Piedmont.

[Stratosphere 2020]

Fun comparisons.

• Video Link

• Video Link

[JMKeynes]

I like Atlanta. It’s cheap, has nice weather, has beautiful suburbs, and is close to Florida. I prefer it to other cities in its region like Charlotte and Nashville, though Nashville is better in some respects.

However, it’s not remotely important. NY and DC are.

In fact, its lack of significance prompted this whole thread. NY, DC, London, Paris, etc never ask if they’re important.

Lastly, while I like Atlanta, I think that Charleston and Savannah are vastly superior.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

However, it’s not remotely important. NY and DC are.

In fact, its lack of significance prompted this whole thread. NY, DC, London, Paris, etc never ask if they’re important.

what an asinine argument.

just because a city isn't some global alpha++ like london or NYC doesn't mean that it can't have a tremendous amount of importance within other specific non-global scales (as this thread very clearly spelled out in its freaking title).

toronto is not a global alpha++ like london or NYC, but it's still the most important city within canada.

moscow is not a global alpha++ like london or NYC, but it's still the most important city within russia.

buenos aires is not a global alpha++ like london or NYC, but it's still the most important city within argentina.

the US is a huge, and hugely important, nation, so many of us find it interesting to look at the important cities within sub-regions of it because just saying things like "NYC is the most important US city, therefor no other US cities are important" is pretty fucking stupid.

as for atlanta and the south, it's easily one of the most important cities in that region, though things do get a bit muddled because "the south", at its macro level, is such a huge and widely varied place to begin with and cities like houton, dallas, and miami also enter the equation. it's not a slam dunk case for atlanta like it is for chicago in the midwest.

[pj3000]

^ and the midwest part of the North, and NYC is the most important city in the North. So Chicago isn’t important. Right?

[JManc]

SW3..I'm thinking he's in London. Plus the Churchill avatar so Atlanta might not be that prominent to him but in the US, it absolutely is. Far more so than Charleston and Savannah.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

^ and the midwest part of the North

NEVER!




i

[pj3000]

This talk about Atlanta not being remotely important is beyond silly.

I’m mean, come on... Atlanta hosted the summer Olympics a quarter century ago.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

what an asinine argument.

just because a city isn't some global alpha++ like london or NYC doesn't mean that it can't have a tremendous amount of importance within other specific non-global scales (as this thread very clearly spelled out in its freaking title).

toronto is not a global alpha++ like london or NYC, but it's still the most important city within canada.

moscow is not a global alpha++ like london or NYC, but it's still the most important city within russia.

buenos aires is not a global alpha++ like london or NYC, but it's still the most important city within argentina.

the US is a huge, and hugely important, nation, so many of us find it interesting to look at the important cities within sub-regions of it because just saying things like "NYC is the most important US city, therefor no other US cities are important" is pretty fucking stupid.

as for atlanta and the south, it's easily one of the most important cities in that region, though things do get a bit muddled because "the south", at its macro level, is such a huge and widely varied place to begin with and cities like houton, dallas, and miami also enter the equation. it's not a slam dunk case for atlanta like it is for chicago in the midwest.

Your comments are quite confrontational. Do you get a free pass to be rude?

Moreover, your comments are, to use your pejorative language, asinine per se. Atlanta is not remotely on the scale of Moscow, Buenos Aires, or Toronto, two of which are, obviously, national capitals.

[pj3000]

^ He didn’t say that it is.

And nice job of modifying your response quickly after being called out

Still, Steely didn’t claim that Atlanta was on the same scale as those cities.

[JMKeynes]

Originally Posted by pj3000

^ He didn’t say that it is.

And nice job of modifying your response quickly after being called out

Still, Steely didn’t claim that Atlanta was on the same scale as those cities.

I didn't modify anything in response to him. If you do things like that and care so much about this stuff, then I must say that you're quite a loser.

Moreover, like him, you're unnecessarily confrontational. You should adopt a more civil tone.

Lastly, as noted, Atlanta is not important, and no important entity needs external affirmation as to whether or not it is.