Atlanta, GA: Truly World Class?

[teshadoh]

Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc

As much as I would like to give "kudos" to Atlanta for its diversity and acceptance, I simply can't. I lived in Atlanta for almost 3 years--both in the suburbs (Marietta and Alpharetta) and downtown (Peachtree and Marietta Streets)--and althought the midtown portion of Atlanta strives to keep a thriving gay community and diversified community alive, elsewhere in the city and suburbs, god forbid if you are gay (@ least openly), non-white color skin, or have interests in anything other than nascar or college football.

There are pockets of progress in Atlanta--East Atlanta, Midtown (as mentioned), Virginia Highlands, maybe Little Five Points, but overall the whole area is very backward in their attitudes, acceptance, and progression towards "world class."

I'll have to call you on this one, I haven't heard of many complaints of Gay intolerance in intown Atlanta, 'the city'. What is a non-gay friendly neighborhood in Atlanta? There have been isolated reports of anti-gay comments in poorer neighborhoods, but these arguements usually regard gentrification. Seriously - if there is anyone that is openly accepted in most neighborhoods in Atlanta (especially mine) that would be Gay people - Atlanta's gentrification is largely due to the Gay community.

But otherwise - it's relative to your view of how diverse or tolerant different peoples are. But I'm not going to vouch that Atlanta is as tolerant as it should be... (basically - it's pretty damn good for a southern city, marginally well for a city in the US, but otherwise...)

[notoriousbib]

Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc

elsewhere in the city and suburbs, god forbid if you are gay (@ least openly), non-white color skin, or have interests in anything other than nascar or college football.

None of those people are even from metro Atlanta or the south for that matter. I hate to break it to you, but non-natives now outnumber natives in the metro area. Methinks you'd run into those same people anywhere in America. They seem to be taking over the country anyway.

[kavok]

All world class cities have name recognition, even though some cities that have name recognition might not necessarily be world class. Take for example European cities. How many can you name? Someone with good geographical knowledge could name a bunch, others only a few. Same goes for someone over there, or elsewhere in the world. And until Atlanta becomes one of the top 3 or 4, it probably wont be considered “world class” by people outside the south.

IMO, the 4 most recognizable cities in America are:
1. NYC
2. LA
3. Washington
4. Chicago

After that you have a group (in no particular order) that includes: Boston, Philly, Detroit, Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Las Vegas, and San Francisco.

[SkyHigh529]

^In the end, Atlanta is important enough to at least be debated over whether it is world class and so I'm happy with that..

[vcross]

Originally Posted by kavok

All world class cities have name recognition, even though some cities that have name recognition might not necessarily be world class. Take for example European cities. How many can you name? Someone with good geographical knowledge could name a bunch, others only a few. Same goes for someone over there, or elsewhere in the world. And until Atlanta becomes one of the top 3 or 4, it probably wont be considered “world class” by people outside the south.

IMO, the 4 most recognizable cities in America are:
1. NYC
2. LA
3. Washington
4. Chicago

After that you have a group (in no particular order) that includes: Boston, Philly, Detroit, Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Las Vegas, and San Francisco.

Ahem, I'd throw Dallas in that list too I've found that when I travel out of the country (Europe & Central America are the main places I've been) that I only have to say "Dallas" as where I am from with immediate recognition and no explanation of where it is, etc.

I think Boston, Miami, and SF are different in that many, many more foreigners visits those two cities just to visit than the than the rest on the list.

[JordanF338]

Wow, I guess my neighboring city, the unofficial Noble(remember the tri-state crematory incident) is world class based on name recognition. In April I went to France and a few French people knew where it were.

[kavok]

^ I repeat. Just because a city has name recognition does not mean it is "world class." However, all "world class" cities do have name recognition.

And vcross is right, I should have included Dallas on that list. My oversight.

[Westin Peachtree]

Atlanta has a 1000 footer...
...world class city indeed!

What were you guys thinking!

[Amd1588]

Originally Posted by SkyHigh529

^In the end, Atlanta is important enough to at least be debated over whether it is world class and so I'm happy with that..

Yeap, its amazing no one is debating wether or not Charlotte, Houston, or Dallas are "World Class Cities"......... Or is it just generally accepted that they already are?

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by mvasquez

How much of a factor is wielding global influence when considering if a city is world class?

On the same note, here is a question...

Between Chicago and Atlanta, which city has more national influence? Global influence?

No knock on Atlanta though, I like the place... in some ways, moreso than Chicago.

[Shadey]

Not a world class city by anymeans but I still like atlanta though.

[MobileAL1]

Originally Posted by Atlman1

I would consider Atlanta a world-class city. It is an extremely important business center to the world.

Not to the world bruh, only the state of Georgia. Atlanta is no world class city, San Franciso is more important in the world then ATL and it isn't even a world class city.

[RON-E]

i love atlanta. it is a world-class city. it has hosted the summer olympics, it has the busiest airport in the country, and it has a population to boot. it is a world class city!

[Atlman1]

I would consider Atlanta a world-class city. It is an extremely important business center to the world.

[eastwestrob]

Originally Posted by RON-E

i love atlanta. it is a world-class city. it has hosted the summer olympics, it has the busiest airport in the country, and it has a population to boot. it is a world class city!

Its airport is the busiest in the world, With Chicago's O'Hare in a close 2nd place!

[RON-E]

Originally Posted by eastwestrob

Its airport is the busiest in the world, With Chicago's O'Hare in a close 2nd place!

wow, cool, i thought it was just the country....

[edsg25]

Atlanta is a most formidible city. No city has sold itself as successfully as Atlanta in the 20th century and beyond.

A lot of the "world class" discussions end up being a lot of crap anyway. But I would like to make this obseration:

the South, IMHO, may be the least hierarchial region in the nation when it comes to its cities. In the northeast, the pecking order starts with the world-until-its-own that is NYC with the power of the federal government putting DC right afterwards with Boston on its heals.

Chicago domnates the midwest. LA is the big city out west and SF comes second with a gap before other areas (all great and important) like Seattle, SD, Vegas, Phoenx, Denver pop up.

The South? the place is too damned competitve. New Orleans is the big city of yore, shaken by Katrina but still a potential force in the region. Miami's link with Latin America will keep its prominence going. Atlanta balances business and transportation and is an essential. Both Houston and Dallas are "players" in Texas and in the whole region.

the result? Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Dallas, and New Orleans split southern power and city recongntion like no other region. The South may well be the most "hubbed" region of the nation.

And Atlanta's role within the region and nationally is unquestionable.

[Westsidelife]

The 1996 Olympics set the foundation for what was to become a world class city. But as of right now, it's still not there quite yet. Give Atlanta another 10 years and then we shall see where it ranks.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Atlanta is a most formidible city. No city has sold itself as successfully as Atlanta in the 20th century and beyond.

A lot of the "world class" discussions end up being a lot of crap anyway. But I would like to make this obseration:

the South, IMHO, may be the least hierarchial region in the nation when it comes to its cities. In the northeast, the pecking order starts with the world-until-its-own that is NYC with the power of the federal government putting DC right afterwards with Boston on its heals.

Chicago domnates the midwest. LA is the big city out west and SF comes second with a gap before other areas (all great and important) like Seattle, SD, Vegas, Phoenx, Denver pop up.

The South? the place is too damned competitve. New Orleans is the big city of yore, shaken by Katrina but still a potential force in the region. Miami's link with Latin America will keep its prominence going. Atlanta balances business and transportation and is an essential. Both Houston and Dallas are "players" in Texas and in the whole region.

the result? Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Dallas, and New Orleans split southern power and city recongntion like no other region. The South may well be the most "hubbed" region of the nation.

And Atlanta's role within the region and nationally is unquestionable.

The decentralization of economically dominant cities in the South is a topic that's been brought up on occasion. I think part of, if not the main, reason for this is simply sheer size, in both area and population. The South has 100 million people spread over an area that's as big as the Northeast and Midwest (including the plains states) combined, with relatively even population density from the Carolinas to east Texas (the noticable dropoff is west of I-35...).

Simply put, it's too big a populated area for one city to practically dominate. Atlanta's influence stops at the Mississippi River, and it's here that the Texas tandem takes over.

To put into perspective how large in area the region is... my hometown in northern Alabama is 3 hours northwest of Atlanta, and a 9 hour drive south from Chicago. Yet, it's 12 hours west to Dallas or Houston, 12 hours south to Orlando, and 11 hours northeast to DC. That should put into perspective just how far it is from say, east Texas to the Carolina coast.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

The decentralization of economically dominant cities in the South is a topic that's been brought up on occasion. I think part of, if not the main, reason for this is simply sheer size, in both area and population. The South has 100 million people spread over an area that's as big as the Northeast and Midwest (including the plains states) combined, with relatively even population density from the Carolinas to east Texas (the noticable dropoff is west of I-35...).

let's add another factor, Rail. The antebellum south was an agrarian region as slavery discouraged industry and lowered the value of southern labor. The South that emerged from the Civil War was in shambles and was still stuck with Jim Crow for nearly a century.

In other regions, trade, commerce, immigration, and industrialization allowed certain cities to rise to the top at times when cities were entities unto themselves and had far more control over their own destinies than they do today.

This current era is not nearly as friendly to a city putting things into place and rising to the top. This is a more mature nation today and those cities that rise do so with lss of the pay off from the rise of cities in more formative times in the US.

Thus places like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, etc., have difficulty emerging from the pact because there is little they can do at this time to be able to truly differentiate themselves from each other. The only southern city that has a real advantage in the 21st century in using its niche to create world class greatness, IMHO, is Miami....which is the beneficiary of being the only true Latin American-US culturally mixing link in the United States today.