The figures are for the political boundry governed by Mayor Shirley Franklin, the City of Atlanta. With reference to what you wrote above; Warrington, Wimslow, Burnley, Huddersfield (Yorkshire isn't it?) are not Manchester.Jerv said:I would be interested to see the inward ivestment figures for manchester, yet this is not so clear cut e.g. investment into warrington, Wimslow, Burnley, Huddersfield etc would not be included in the manchester figure (or liverpool/leeds), but similar outlying suburbs of Atlanta probably would be included in Atlanta because of the spatial/demographic arrangment differences of the two countries.
If just the city CBD were concerned, then Atlanta's inward investment would be several times higher.
(There is a point somewhere here!)
But, "clustered" or not and believe it or not, Atlanta is a wonderful uncluttered people freindly city. Atlanta is a beatiful city with many open spaces and public squares and, is very people freindly downtown. Accura, you would be surprised at the open spaces you will find amid the canyons of concrete and steel in North American cities.Accura_Preston said:I dont think Manchester's skyline will ever be as clustered as that...
And croydon is not london, Scarborough, Mississigua and brampton are not Toronto.sloyne said:The figures are for the political boundry governed by Mayor Shirley Franklin, the City of Atlanta. With reference to what you wrote above; Warrington, Wimslow, Burnley, Huddersfield (Yorkshire isn't it?) are not Manchester.
I agree that manchester will not have a skyline like Atlanta's during my lifetime. I understand that atlanta is an economic powerhouse and so it should be expected to have more commercial floorspace than Manchester.sloyne said:The point here is that I am very sceptical that Manchesters skyline will match that of Atlantas, in 10 years, because of all that I wrote. British cities, outside the capital, are provincial cities, whether or not they call themselves regional capitals or not. Inward investment is directed by the central government with very little input, outside of political lobbying, from the recipient cities. The mayor of Atlanta along with the govenor of the State of Georgia have the authority to offer tax and cash incentives to companies to relocate and build in Atlanta, the leaders of Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds et al do not.
Well Atlanta have a five hour lag over Manchester because it's downtown stores don't close until 10:00pm. The restaurants stay open even later. Of course Atlanta doesn't have the pub culture that UK cities do (thank God), after five pm in Manchester pubs are the only visible signs of nightlife. I would compare Atlantas night-life to any, anywhere in the world and certainly the comparison with Manchester nightlife would leave Atlanta far out front. I can fill my gas tank 24 hours a day in the city and don't have to trek for miles to find an open convenience store. MARTA (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority,) have a superb network of bus and subway rail systems that are clean, efficient and safe.steppenwolf said:If Manchester ever ends up with a city centre like Atlanta's - dead, I will cry. There's nothing going on and they feel strilised and soulless. (sweeping generalisation of course but based on reality) If Manchester wanted so badly, to collect a load of phallusses together to be bigger and better than leeds!!? It would need to demolish its personality.
Jerv said:Scarborough, Mississigua and brampton are not Toronto.Right and wrong! Mississauga and Brampton are in the Region of Peel and are not Toronto but Scarborough definitely IS part of Toronto! Toronto has a population of 4.5 million and now encompasses the old towns of North York, East York, Scarborough, Etobicoke and parts of Voughan and Markham Townships.
Well some of our (Toronto's) "Victorian" buildings would compare favourably with anything Manchester has to offer. Just a few of examples: The Ontario Legislative building, the U of T building, the Federal Building on Front Street, Union Station and the Royal York Hotel (once the tallest building in the British Empire). But this isn't a TO versus Manchester discussion. As to comparing Manchester's architecture with that of Liverpools. I personally find little comparison but this is not to denigrate Manchesters architecture. As to distinct personalities, again, it is a personal opinion, just like your opinion of Toronto. And, returning to the original discussion, I still think it is pipe dreaming for Manchester to equal the skyline of Atlanta.Jerv said:Oldham. Old-ham?
You're having a laugh.
And how would you like it to be distinct. Disneyland in the centre perhaps? North Americans would love the architectural heritage we have in the north west. Perhaps our 'Mundane' Victorian and Georgian power buildings should be replaced to make it less 'provincial' and more 'distinct'
I can understand why you find Bristol and Newcastle more distinctive than Manchester but not Liverpool. Liverpool grew up at the same time as Manchester and has very similar architecture.
Surely this isn't typical Mancunian, is it? Something I find very disconcerting about this forum, is the venom and intolerance from some of the contributers. It would seem to me that the likes of "highriser" does no favour to Manchester and it's inhabitants.highriser said:and the stuff that comes out of your mouth,also comes out of your arse