Atlanta, GA: Truly World Class?

[CLTNC]

I saw on TV the other night a small town in Tenn. near the Ga. line has water for 3 hours a day. It is turn on at 6PM and off at 9PM. They are at the head waters for the Atlanta area. Sounds like Atlanta area is in trouble for water.

World class cities need lots of water.

[fanofterps]

is not world class for the following reasons:

1. only 400,000 people live in the city where most are inner city poor
2. No historic district downtown even close to the size of Annapolis, Georgetown or Soho/Village in New York
3. No waterfront area
4. Very little sight seeing in the city except for CNN, Varsity and Coke. I don't even count the Aquarium since just about every city has one now.

Atlanta maybe world class if you like suburb towns .

[Atlman1]

Originally Posted by fanofterps

is not world class for the following reasons:

1. only 400,000 people live in the city where most are inner city poor
2. No historic district downtown even close to the size of Annapolis, Georgetown or Soho/Village in New York
3. No waterfront area
4. Very little sight seeing in the city except for CNN, Varsity and Coke. I don't even count the Aquarium since just about every city has one now.

Atlanta maybe world class if you like suburb towns .

Wow.....you are very misinformed. Apparently you have never been here.

[Amd1588]

More like a typical hater. It gets kinda old on this site though.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by fanofterps

is not world class for the following reasons:

1. only 400,000 people live in the city where most are inner city poor

Well, Atlanta's population in the city is actually growing. It is closing in on 500,000 now. Besides, the metro area is already over five million.

2. No historic district downtown even close to the size of Annapolis, Georgetown or Soho/Village in New York

Things like this doesn't make a city world class. Decatur is nice though.

3. No waterfront area

Doesn't make a world-class city.

4. Very little sight seeing in the city except for CNN, Varsity and Coke. I don't even count the Aquarium since just about every city has one now.

Have you been to Stone Mountain? Atlanta has a lot of things to do in the city. You really are misinformed.

[PiperPig]

Originally Posted by fanofterps

is not world class for the following reasons:

1. only 400,000 people live in the city where most are inner city poor
2. No historic district downtown even close to the size of Annapolis, Georgetown or Soho/Village in New York
3. No waterfront area
4. Very little sight seeing in the city except for CNN, Varsity and Coke. I don't even count the Aquarium since just about every city has one now.

Atlanta maybe world class if you like suburb towns .

No one who has spent more than one day in Atlanta could ever say such mean things about it.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by fanofterps

is not world class for the following reasons:

2. No historic district downtown even close to the size of Annapolis, Georgetown or Soho/Village in New York

Well, that rules out every major city in Asia...

[GEOSPATIA1]

Originally Posted by Amd1588

More like a typical hater. It gets kinda old on this site though.

I just thought I'd repeat a post I made regarding the same question regarding Houston in the same vein.


Well even supercities, according to the classif scheme here, always have plenty to improve upon as well.

I live in NYC and it has many things wrong with it and 4/5 of NYC is not Manhattan like most people try to identify it with.

Both Houston and Atlanta are world class cities imo. Alpha perhaps not yet according to one system but at least gamma and that is 'world class'.

Any city in the US that has foreign consulates and embassy related or even embassies themselves has world presence and influence imparted worldwide. Atlanta with just its airport as a major crossroads alone.

Both Houston having 6 and Atlanta 5 as of last count of foreign consulates for international relations makes them indisputably world class on just that 1 criterion alone. Dallas has 2 itself. Heck even San Antonio has at least one and that city has begun to show at least minimal evidence of world city formation. Having at least 1 foreign consular office there helps a city attain some officialdom beyond the local and regional or even national recognition.

Countries don't have offices in certain cities for nothing and that makes that city 'world class' and the way many cities are growing things can certainly change and they can attain even more status. And in my criteria even more countries can add diplomatic offices where there is significant trade and relations between them.

That's why Atlanta is 'world class' on this thread, they look for resilience and determination as well, and the history of this town certainly speaks of one that has overcome many obstacles. It's truly "Olympic". That's something even NY cannot say that it ever hosted such world class enterprise.

[UrbanDesigner]

Originally Posted by GEOSPATIA1

Any city in the US that has foreign consulates and embassy related or even embassies themselves has world presence and influence imparted worldwide. Atlanta with just its airport as a major crossroads alone.

Both Houston having 6 and Atlanta 5 as of last count of foreign consulates for international relations makes them indisputably world class on just that 1 criterion alone. Dallas has 2 itself. Heck even San Antonio has at least one and that city has begun to show at least minimal evidence of world city formation. Having at least 1 foreign consular office there helps a city attain some officialdom beyond the local and regional or even national recognition.

Countries don't have offices in certain cities for nothing and that makes that city 'world class' and the way many cities are growing things can certainly change and they can attain even more status. And in my criteria even more countries can add diplomatic offices where there is significant trade and relations between them.



That's why Atlanta is 'world class' on this thread, they look for resilience and determination as well, and the history of this town certainly speaks of one that has overcome many obstacles. It's truly "Olympic". That's something even NY cannot say that it ever hosted such world class enterprise.

By this definition, Charlotte and Raleigh would be world-class. BTW, imho, hosting an Olympics doesn't necessarily make a city "world class" since so many "world class" cities haven't hosted one...Chicago, SF, Boston, Houston, Dallas, Miami, DC, Philadelphia, etc. in this country alone haven't hosted an Olympics. Does hosting an Olympics make St. Louis "world class"?

P.S. These are the number of Fortune 500 companies headquartered in US cities:

1. New York New York 44

2. Houston Texas 23

3. Atlanta Georgia 14

4. Dallas Texas 11

5. Chicago Illinois 10

6. Charlotte North Carolina 7

6. Cincinnati Ohio 7

6. Minneapolis Minnesota 7

6. Philadelphia Pennsylvania 7

6. St. Louis Missouri 7

7. Milwaukee Wisconsin 6

7. Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 6

7. Richmond Virginia 6

7. San Francisco California 6

8. Cleveland Ohio 5

8. Columbus Ohio 5

8. Denver Colorado 5

8. Omaha Nebraska 5

8. San Antonio Texas 5

8. Seattle Washington 5

Atlanta, GA's not a bad city and in many ways it's definitely world class but let's not confuse the issue. Houston and Dallas by Atlanta's standard's - and a number of other cities for that matter, are also "world class". Let's not forget that Atlanta has been around for a lot longer than her cousins in the South - and is the overwhelmingly dominate city in the entire state of Georgia - and so, on that point alone it has a lot of props that other cities in other states can only dream of.

[Shawn]

Seriously, this is like beating a dead horse: Tokyo, New York, Hong Kong, London, Paris, Barcelona, Atlanta. Which one of these doesn't belong?

[Atlman1]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Seriously, this is like beating a dead horse: Tokyo, New York, Hong Kong, London, Paris, Barcelona, Atlanta. Which one of these doesn't belong?

This is easy, Barcelona......

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Atlman1

This is easy, Barcelona......

True, the Barcelona ladies do outclass women from the other cities listed.

[NovaWolverine]

Atlanta is not world class at this point.

[Atlman1]

Originally Posted by NovaWolverine

Atlanta is not world class at this point.

Why wouldn't it be? What makes a city world-class?

[Trae]

Originally Posted by GEOSPATIA1

I just thought I'd repeat a post I made regarding the same question regarding Houston in the same vein.


Well even supercities, according to the classif scheme here, always have plenty to improve upon as well.

I live in NYC and it has many things wrong with it and 4/5 of NYC is not Manhattan like most people try to identify it with.

Both Houston and Atlanta are world class cities imo. Alpha perhaps not yet according to one system but at least gamma and that is 'world class'.

Any city in the US that has foreign consulates and embassy related or even embassies themselves has world presence and influence imparted worldwide. Atlanta with just its airport as a major crossroads alone.

Both Houston having 6 and Atlanta 5 as of last count of foreign consulates for international relations makes them indisputably world class on just that 1 criterion alone. Dallas has 2 itself. Heck even San Antonio has at least one and that city has begun to show at least minimal evidence of world city formation. Having at least 1 foreign consular office there helps a city attain some officialdom beyond the local and regional or even national recognition.

Countries don't have offices in certain cities for nothing and that makes that city 'world class' and the way many cities are growing things can certainly change and they can attain even more status. And in my criteria even more countries can add diplomatic offices where there is significant trade and relations between them.

That's why Atlanta is 'world class' on this thread, they look for resilience and determination as well, and the history of this town certainly speaks of one that has overcome many obstacles. It's truly "Olympic". That's something even NY cannot say that it ever hosted such world class enterprise.

Houston has the third most foreign consular offices in the nation behind NYC and LA.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Atlman1

Why wouldn't it be? What makes a city world-class?

Saskia Sassen, one of the world's most prominent international political economists, regularly gives lectures to civic leaders throughout the world on this very topic. Her seminal book - The Global City - covers in depth what she and most of her IPE peers view as "world class" criteria. Her main qualification is that a world class city must have a direct and tangible effect on global affairs through more than just socio-economic means, with influence in terms of culture and politics. World-renowned cultural institutions (the Met, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, the Louvre, Toudai, etc.), extensive transit systems (Atlanta's transit system is roughly 1% the size of Tokyo's), home to prominent international financial institutions (NYSE Euronext, the IMF, etc.), and an active influence on and participation in international events and world affairs (UN, UNESCO, OECD headquarters, etc.) are all prerequisites. Size plays an important factor as well.

Atlanta does not host any world-renowned cultural institutions. Its transit network is poor by international standards, especially for a city with a metro population of over 5 million. It is not home to any prominent international financial institutions, and it has no significant influence on international events and world affairs (and no, CNN doesn't cut it - it's reach is largely compromised outside of the US and Canada). Additionally, depending upon which measurement standard you use, Atlanta is somewhere between the 70th and 80th largest metropolitan area in the world. Its economy is a little more than half the size of some other major American cities, such as Boston's and San Fransisco's - both of which do not qualify for world class cities either, by the way.

"World class"-ness is also about successful branding. Atlanta does not have the name recognition or the prestige associated with other world class cities with decades of efficacious branding campaigns under their belts.

As I've repeated before, if you really need convincing that Atlanta is not world class, simply insert "Atlanta" in to a list of unquestionably world class cities and see how doing so sits: New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Atlanta. Is Atlanta a peer city of New York? Do Atlanta's cultural institutions match up with those of Paris and London?

Atlanta has so many positive attributes to build on, Atlantans should be proud of how far their city has come over the past 30 years or so. But let's keep some perspective here and not let homerism cloud rational thought. Despite all of its pluses, Atlanta has a long way to go before it catches the likes of Chicago, Toronto, Brussels and Osaka (the "almost there" world class cities), let alone New York or Hong Kong.

[Paddington]

There was an episode of Futurama on this exact topic.

[TU 'cane]

Originally Posted by NovaWolverine

Atlanta is not world class at this point.

I agree.

[mo1217]

Does it really matter?World class or not World class or near world class.Why are we so enthralled in this nonsense.I find these so called world class discussions or debates to be sooooo funny or silly if you will.I'm worldclass,you're world class,you are not world class,in five years you could be world class.MY OPINION, we're all world class Houston and Atlanta included.

[LSyd]

Originally Posted by Paddington

There was an episode of Futurama on this exact topic.

there's more than just the airport.

-

p.s. but IMO, the ATL, like Houston, isn't world class...yet. needs more infrastructure. both cities need to fill in/fill out/develop a bit.