[sprtsluvr8]

The truth is that a majority of ecnomic growth is suburban-based, these days, for just about every city in this country, meaning that many of these 'newer' cities still aren't going to be seeing near the amount of inner-city infrastructure enlargement and improvement they'll need to be able to recentralize. And, no, freeway expansions and enlargements won't be enough. I'm talking about inner-city rail lines that will make economies more efficient.

A city like Cleveland (built for nearly a million + its urban suburbs), or Detroit (built for nearly 2 million + its urban suburbs) will be much better positioned the re-urbanization of the country's population whenever that happens. A lot of sunbelt cities are seeing some decent infill, but it's still a ridiculously small percentage of the total growth of the urban/metro areas. I mean, urban and metro Atlanta has added a ridiculous amont of population and economic growth, but just a smidgen of that has been in the inner-city, and inner-city growth is an even ridiculously smaller percentage in many other 'newer' cities.

As long as growth is suburban-oriented, those that have been great at this type of development will continue to proposer. I also think that as shallow as we become, we're going to find climate become less and less important like it used to be.

A smidgen of Atlanta's overall growth has been in the actual city limits, but that growth is amazing considering past declines...and it represents about a 15% increase in the city population. From 2000 to 2005 Atlanta's urban population increased by 54,000...and this is a trend that is predicted to continue and increase in the foreseeable future as urban living becomes more attractive in Atlanta. Other sun belt cities are seeing this trend as well, so the tide is already turning and these cities are not doomed to see only suburban growth.

Atlanta is not exactly a "newer" city...it has been an important center since the 1850's, and has seen trememdous growth and development for decades. Climate isn't the only draw to Atlanta and the South...although it is an important reason for many people who have chosen to live here. What is so shallow about being drawn to warm sunny weather? It sounds like an intelligent move to me!

 

[sprtsluvr8]

Atlanta was more like a Grand Rapids than a Milwaukee in its early years. Sure Atlanta has an historic core, but its not nearly as large as what you'll find in the larger Midwestern cities. Even in the 1920's Milwaukee was more than twice the size of Atlanta.

Atlanta's downtown core has 40+ highrise buildings from 1900-1920's, the oldest being the Flatiron Building built in 1895. There is a large neighborhood downtown called Fairleigh-Poplar that is nothing but historic buildings; then there is Castleberry Hill, which is an 1800's industrial/warehouse district that is booming with residential and retail loft conversions; the Marietta St. corridor is another 1800's industrial district, with retail and residential lofts. These comprise a huge part of downtown and I'm sure can compete with Milwaukee. In 1920 Atlanta's population was 200,000 to Milwaukee's 457,000...Atlanta was smaller, but still a large city for that time period. There is a large amount of history here that is often overlooked by people who have never visited and make assumptions that Atlanta is a "new" city. Oh, and Grand Rapids population in 2000 wasn't even as large as Atlanta's in 1920, so definitely not a good comparison.

Ohand the only thing Atlanta really misses is a huge natural landmark. Say-mountains, navigable river, ocean, great lake, ect.

Atlanta being at the foot of the Southern Appalachians is the reason for all the trees...drive 30 minutes North of the city and you're in beautiful mountains. Stone Mountain is nothing to overlook either - it's the largest piece of exposed granite in the world -and there is Kennesaw Mountain in Cobb County...both visible from downtown. There isn't a navigable river here, but apparently Atlanta didn't need one to grow and prosper. The lakes speak for themselves...I'm not sure what else you could want other than the ocean - and we're closer to that than 75% of the U.S. Take a look at a map of North Georgia and it's easy to see an abundance of natural resources. The huge natural landmark is Stone Mountain - that's an easy one.

 

[sprtsluvr8]

Climate decisions are shallow considering the different and challenging environments humans have lived in since their existence. Furthermore, 'climate' decisions are often made on little more than 'does it get cold there?' which is shallow. If anyone is to make a climate decision at least try and make it along the lines of meaningful factors such as hurricanes, tornados, floods, earthquakes, ect...no whether you're going to feel uncomfortable or inconvenienced by cold or snow. lol

BTW, I'm not picking on Atlanta, but making note of where the growth has gone and is going. It's great to finally see population growth in its core city and see the infill, but it doesn't change the fact that its core downtown area is historically small, and small for a city and economy of its size.

I agree with other posts that people don't make decisions about living here based only on the climate, but I don't see how that decision would be shallow. I think that people have suddenly realized that they have options to the harsh winters up North, and they have been choosing to leave for warmer climates for the past few decades. It's not about "does it get cold there?"...it's more about "is it cold there from September through April?" In Atlanta we only have 3 months of semi-cold weather, and that doesn't usually include snow and always includes about a month's worth of 60-70 degree days. It is warm here up to Thanksgiving and Spring starts in February. There is a HUGE difference in climate and it isn't shallow wanting to live your life in the warmer one.

I wouldn't judge Atlanta's core downtown without seeing/experiencing it. When is the last time you were here and noted the size of downtown Atlanta?

 

[sprtsluvr8]

No it wouldn't. Indy was twice the size of Atlanta from 1870-1900. Even afterwards, Indy was larger until about 1960.

In Atlanta's defense, the city (population wise) is in the top 50 cities from 1880-on. Jesus, you guys are making it seem like Atlanta just sprang up out of nowhere, and it didn't.

Thank you! Atlanta is a city people love to make judgements about without ever having visited or experienced the actual city.

So Lmichigan, your assertion is that Birmingham has a more impressive downtown core than Atlanta? Are you serious? As for the past 3 decades that you say Atlanta's core experienced growth...that isn't true at all. Atlanta's urban core grew steadily up until the 1970's, when the city hit it's peak population. Then began a decline until the mid-90's, when city population began to creep back up again...and today it is almost back up to that peak number again. Downtown/Midtown development also stagnated until the early 90's, when the Olympics brought new interest. To make those kinds of judgements you really need to see a city and walk around. Otherwise you are going by...hearsay?

 

[sprtsluvr8]

Lmichigan's words:

Really, one doesn't have to look look any farther than say the cities of Birmingham and New Orleans to see some impressive southern cores that are easily on par with similar cities in other regions.

more of Lmichigan's words:

I'm not implying it has a more impressive downtown core. That's you bringing subjectivity into this.

Case closed.

 

[sprtsluvr8]

I'm not implying it has a more impressive downtown core. That's you bringing subjectivity into this. It's not about being impressive or not. I was remarking specifically on the build. Cities like Birmingham and New Orleans have significantly more traditional urban cores.

But, instead of continuing to drag on this obviously personal beef of Atlanta with you, and I'm not going to any longer, why don't you answer Krazie's question, already, and get back on topic?

Your assertion about the larger urban cores of other cities is based on WHAT?

Yes, it does become personal when someone makes false or negative statements about another's hometown. That usually is what starts this type of back and forth conversation. You would never see a post from me about your city that is derogatory and without any kind of provocation. So think about that while you get back on topic...

 

[sprtsluvr8]

We have three or four different personal tiffs going on at once. This is why these are banned over at SSP. Are these types of threads banned over here, as well? Is it possible for this to get back on topic? I kind of doubt it as the original 'question' was a dubious, pointed one to begin with. It seems like the natural progression of these types of things. I do feel stupid for taking the bait.

Taking the bait? You must be joking...you put out the bait with untrue remarks about Atlanta when Atlanta wasn't the topic!

 

[sprtsluvr8]

I just think he meant that Atlanta really isn't as geographically defined as some other cities out there, even some not too far away (e.g., Chattanooga, Greenville, Augusta). As much as I love Atlanta, I must admit that the city's immediate geographical setting is pretty boring.

Atlanta's geography is almost identical to Greenville and Chattanooga. It's not exactly the same, but it's location in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains is very similar to Greenville's location, and Chattanooga is only 1.5 hours away, so how different could they possibly be? It's just a bit further into the mountains than Atlanta is...but Atlanta's rolling hills and mountains are abundant...

 

[sprtsluvr8]

Thank you for the geography lesson, I've never seen a mountain before...the Appalachians aren't mountains??? There are two huge lakes, Allatoona and Lanier, and the Chattahoochee River runs through Atlanta. But I think you're just wanting an arguement...so whatever you want to say, of course. It's a subjective matter, and I think Atlanta does have as much a natural landmark in Stone Mountain as anywhere else. What other city has a huge piece of exposed granite sticking out of the Earth?

Just a side note - a sandpile can be considered a natural landmark.

 

[sprtsluvr8]

Like I said, Atlanta does not have the big natural landmark like an OCEAN, RIVER, GREAT LAKE, MOUNTAINS. That does not take away from the city whatsoever, but it does make a difference to some people if they want to live there. The trees, hills, and gorges give atlanta a beautiful landscape, but not a natural landmark.

Atlanta is IN the mountains...the city has one of the highest elevations of any major city in the U.S. Look it up.

 

[sprtsluvr8]

Let's see if there is a moderator in this forum...you need to stop with the personal attacks.

 

[sprtsluvr8]

I see that you don't ever stop. I'm getting the feeling that you just love to hear your city's name mentioned, good or bad. If something's not about Atlanta, it's not worth talking about, and if someone gets something incorrect about it, that's even better! Give all of us a break, already.

You are quite far off base...YOU brought up Atlanta, not me. I questioned your judgement about a city you've never visited and obviously don't have any knowledge about, and it's been on ever since. You are the problem, not me - anybody can read through the posts and figure that out.

 

[sprtsluvr8]

I can't.

Well, I wouldn't expect anybody to want to go through that torture...but it could be done.

 

[sprtsluvr8]

Actually, I've read the whole thread, and you just seem to be on the prowl to observe any possible slight of Atlanta and complain, even when you are just misinterpreting what people say.

How did you know? You are very perceptive...it's strange how some people can only see one side of an issue, but it makes no difference to me. I haven't continued this fascinating discussion on my own, ya know...two people keep coming back with shit and I respond.

 

[sprtsluvr8]

Downtown is not near stone mountain, or visible appalachians mountains. Yes, we have hills and valleys, but not 9,000 feet peaks within viewing distance. Allatoon and Lanier do not equal great lakes or an ocean. Atlanta is a basically a land-locked city. This still does not inhibit it from a top transportation hub in the country.

The mountains are visible, sorry to tell you...and it's only your opinion about how great the lakes are. Or are you referring to the Great Lakes? I wouldn't think so, since most cities aren't near those...