Is Atlanta the most Important City in the South

[monsoon]

[bobliocatt]

While Atlanta's core may be growing slowly, for decades the city had been losing population. For Atlanta to turn it around in a short period of time is really great. And also you fail to mention that Atlanta sits on about 130 sq miles. Houston takes up an area of 600 sq miles and seems to be fixated on annexing. While Houston proper may be growing faster, much of that growth is sprawl out in the countryside. It simply has a Houston address. The same can be said for Dallas which is nearly 400 sq. miles. Core growth does not necessarily mean it isn't sprawl.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about Miami? Its only 35 square miles and is growing over two times as fast as the 180 square mile city of Atlanta.

[bobliocatt]

Atlanta is certainly an example of poor planning, but that is not what the question is - Atlanta is the largest metro in the Southeast - if one goes west to Texas that is a whole different story then, but for the SouthEAST - Atlanta by far is the capital.  It is irrelevant what folks in Tampa, Orlando, Knoxville etc. think about the city, the fact is the significance of the city as the business center of the region.  Atlanta has a lot of problems and - again - is poorly planned and a great example of sprawl, but as the business center, it's significance would be unchallenged.

Howeer the city lacks character and is relatively weak on culture for a city of its size, but I really can't think of any Southern city that has all of the components.  In New Orleans and Miami, you have character, but they aren't necessarily arts centers per se... then you have truly Southern Savannah and Charleston which are very enjoyable to see, but are pretty small.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The question of the thread is "Is Atlanta the most Important City in the South". The South as a region, includes Houston, Dallas, Miami & DC. With larger metros included then the answer is absolutely no. Now, I will say Atlanta can be considered the Capitol or most important city in the Deep South region where old dixie is still alive and kicking. However, its not much more than a pile of dirt to places outside of that area.

BTW, DC's roots are deeply southern. Don't take my word for it, just run a google search using Washington DC and Southern history as keywords.

[alexr15]

Ok lets assume Atlanta's city limits were like Houston's and incorporated its entire core counties,  Fulton & Dekalb.  This is 727 sq/mile area. 

Take note of this map Atlanta metro.  During the period in question, Fulton Cnty only added 2300 or so people over 3 years,  Dekalb added 8500.  So 11,000 people were added in a 727 square mile area.    This is the core of the Atlanta Metro which as noted above added 362,051 people.  Only 3% of the Atlanta Metro's growth took place in the core.   

I say that makes Atlanta the King of all Sprawl. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are actually five counties that would be considered "core" counties. They are not however all within the city limits of Atlanta. They are Fulton, Dekalb, Gwinnet, Cobb, and Clayton. Together they compromise 3,076,764 people. The simple fact is that DeKalb and Fulton grow slowly especially Dekalb because there is a lack of available land to build on. Atlanta is also more densely populated than Houston. Atlanta's average density is 3161/mi compared with Houston's 1349/mi. The vast amount of land that is available in southern Fulton county is very nearly off limits as of now.

Another thing, Houston metro occupies an area slightly larger than the state of New Jersey with a population of 4.7 million in 2000 while Atlanta's metro area occupies about half that amount of space(albeit with more counties) and had about 470,000 less residents.

[bobliocatt]

There are actually five counties that would be considered "core" counties. They are not however all within the city limits of Atlanta. They are Fulton, Dekalb, Gwinnet, Cobb, and Clayton. Together they compromise 3,076,764 people. The simple fact is that DeKalb and Fulton grow slowly especially Dekalb because there is a lack of available land to build on. Atlanta is also more densely populated than Houston. Atlanta's average density is 3161/mi compared with Houston's 1349/mi.

[alexr15]

What about Miami?  Its only 35 square miles and is growing over two times as fast as the 180 square mile city of Atlanta.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, not to nitpick or anything but Miami actually has a total area of 55sq. miles and Atlanta has an area of 132sq. miles.

And yes, Miami is growing faster than Atlanta and I would venture to say that is because Miami is seen as a vibrant, culturally diverse city. Not that Atlanta isn't, it's just that Miami is seen as being almost its own universe. So much so that many don't even like to think of Miami as being a part of the south.

And with the many new developments in Atlanta such as Atlantic Station being completed in the next few years, I would expect Atlanta's growth to increase from its current rate.

[alexr15]

Miami and its inner city suburbs have a population density of over 10,000 people per square mile each. Nevertheless, the city continues to add twice as much people in its core, by building up, which is basically the only option at this point.

These stats clearly show that both Atlanta and Houston are biggest sprawlers.  You don't need vast amounts of vacant land to grow in population.  Miami, Las Angeles and NYC are good examples of this.  Houston and Atlanta should look at their dense neighbor to the south for pointers.

BTW, in no way can a suburban, under-developed county, like Gwinnet or Cobb, be considered as a core county.  The demographics of these suburban areas are completely different then that of Decatur or Fulton.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When I said core above, I was refering to the fact that the majority of Atlanta's metro population live in the above five counties. The counties are also often refered to as core counties in the newspaper and such.

And Cobb can not be called underdeveloped, what with more than 90% of its land being used.

[bobliocatt]

Most of Cobb's land is consumed by fast food joints, wide highways, strip malls and low density tract home subdivisions that spouted up during the late 80's and early 90's. In other words, its all sprawl. I consider it under developed because a lot of land was wasted building these low density projects.

When I mean core, I mean the actual walkable city area of the hear of the metro. The only large areas of Atlanta that have this characteristic is Fulton and Decatur Counties.

[Spades]

Are these population figures for the city limits?  If so, there could be some differences due to annexations, particularly for the Texas cities.  Atlanta's city limits have been pretty much static for decades.  I think the same is true for Miami as well.  Atlanta and Miami's growth is due to increased density wheras the Texas cities may be skewed higher from annexations, and not so much increasing density.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dallas hasnt annexed land in decades. Houston hasn't annexed land in nearly a decade. Yet these two cities are growing in the city especially Houston.

btw..Dallas/FW population as of January 1, 2004 was 5,856,350. It is actually growing around 150,000 people per year since 2000. It should be ove 6 million now if the growth continued in 2004.

[monsoon]

[alexr15]

This is what I am saying, the majority of growth in Atlanta is OUTSIDE the perimeter.  Inside the perimeter is a huge area that is many times the size of manhatten, but relatively few people have and are moving there.  It is one of the biggest disappointments in Americian city building.  I am not buying your story that people are not moving inside the perimeter simply because there is no land availabe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did not say that the majority of Atlanta's growth wasn't Outside the perimeter. I said there there was a lack available space to build on but in reality Atlanta is densifying and building on vacant parking lots and such so the land doesn't matter too much. I dont think that there would be 12 million sq. feet of residential, retail, and office space coming on line in Midtown alone at Atlantic Station in the next few years if there was not some pretty strong demand for it. There are 2 billion dollars worth of new projects in Midtown alone scheduled for the next 3 years. Housing prices in the city continue to rise faster than the metro. Atlanta may be growing slower in its core but the turnaround only began about 1999 and for a city that had been losing people for decades is quite great. I would venture to say that on the next estimates Atlanta's growth would have accelerated beyond the 2000 people per year.

[vicupstate]

This is what I am saying, the majority of growth in Atlanta is OUTSIDE the perimeter.  Inside the perimeter is a huge area that is many times the size of manhatten, but relatively few people have and are moving there.  It is one of the biggest disappointments in Americian city building.  I am not buying your story that people are not moving inside the perimeter simply because there is no land availabe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

People are moving inside the perimeter in droves. The traffic has gotten so bad outside the perimeter that there is now a surge back to the city. Everywhere throughout Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead, Decatur, and even South Atlanta are getting infill and rehab projects. Much of the new construction are high-rises. Atlanta proper grew 10% from 1990-2000. That about 35,000-40,000 people.

While Atlanta is still sprawling out of control, there is a simultaneous densification inside the perimeter. Your description would have been appropriate of Atlanta in the early 90's, but it doesn't fit so much now.

DeKalb County is already largely DEVELOPED, but it can and is DENSIFYING with infill and re-development.

Also, the percentages for Fulton and DeKalb may be smaller, but that is because they are larger in population to begin with. 3% growth in an already urban county of 800,000 (like Fulton) is more people than a rural-turning-suburban county of 125,000 growing 18%. Secondly, census estimates are notoriously inaccurate. When the actual census is done, the estimates often prove to way off.

[ATLman1]

Atlanta is most certainly the capitol of the South. It leads the nation in job growth and will continue to do so for the next 5+ years. By 2030 another 2 million people will move to the metro area. The new condos in midtown will boost the central cores population and also add to Atlanta's beautiful skyline. I think monsoon is just mad that Charlotte will never be like Atlanta. Charlotte is what Atlanta was 30+ years ago. If you put Charlotte, Nashville, and Birmingham together it would not come close to the great city of Atlanta!

[monsoon]

[benjamin]

I think that by 2030 atlanta will have grown a lot more than just 2 million people considering it has grown about 900,000 people since 2000 with recent estimates. I honestly notice a lot more people moving to the inner city. I think that with the next estimates it will estimate a lot more than what it currently stands but we will just have to see when the next estimates come out.

[ATLman1]

I hope to see Atlanta grow by more than 2 million by 2030. That was just a figure that I read in the AJC. Another 3 million would be nice. Atlanta needs more people to move into the city limits and buy highrise condos. Some of the new condos that are under construction are amazing.

[monsoon]

Considering Atlanta's lack of any coherant plans for expanding its rail based mass transit system, 2 million more people is going to be a disaster in that area. If this is truely what is going to happen they should be expanding Marta today and not placing any expansion plans on perpetual hold.

[Spartan]

I hope to see Atlanta grow by more than 2 million by 2030. That was just a figure that I read in the AJC. Another 3 million would be nice. Atlanta needs more people to move into the city limits and buy highrise condos. Some of the new condos that are under construction are amazing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They need to not bulid luxury condos and build condos that your average middle class person can afford. It costs as much to buy land and build a house in the suburbs as it does to buy a condo in town. I realize condos in their nature are going to be more expensive, but they should consider that.

[paulblackgsx]

Is Atlanta the most important city? I guess it depends on where you live. I highly doubt that people in eastern Texas could care less if Atlanta exists, likewise, people in Atlanta don't have a huge tie to people in Houston or Dallas.

One thing I do know, is despite the fact that Atlanta growth has slowed a little bit in it's core counties there are a few things to consider:

Atlanta's city growth is highly on the rise. The number of infill developments, dense ones with street level uses is a welcome change from the tall, set back buildings that came in the late 80s and early 90s. The possible addition of two LRT (one very serious and likely to be completed before the end of the decade) in town is very positive. Some transit developments are on the horizon for the burbs. It's difficult dealing with a slow an stubborn government and populace. Just recently, the DOT finally gave in to Midtown Assocations to make a bridge pedestrian friendly, when they wanted to make it all round... in the middle of one of the positively developing, pedestrian friendly portions of the city.

Atlanta's metro growth as slowed some, which may be a good thing. If you look at raw numbers for growth through the 90s though, it was second only to Dallas in pure numbers, and even then only by the 10s of thousands. In terms of percentage, it outgrew all significant sized metros in the south.

Whoever said Miami is only for vacations: your crazy (though it does make a great vacation spot). And oh yeah, Miami's tower growth is off the charts. Plus there drive towards mass transit, even 24 hour mass transit (even if they scaled it back a little, they still tried it and even run buses 24 hours) is certainly the mark of a world class city, and something even Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas have trouble comparing with.

So unless your flight flies through Atlanta, your package comes by truck across one of our freeways, or your companies headquarters or reigional officers are here in town, chances are the majority of the south... the extended south for sure, does not rely on Atlanta's success or failures, they have their own infrastructure.

Now in terms of being a model for southern industrial growth since the civil rights era. A model for minority success in business and industry, and a repreesntation of the booming southern (deep south at least) cities as major US cities, yeah, Atlanta is pretty important for that. But if Atlanta hadn't done it, someone else would. Ask the BHam folks about the airport Atlanta got in the 50s when Atlanta and Birmingham were equal size and BHam was probably considered the more important city. Strange twist of fates.

[spectacle21]

Atlanta being the most important city in the South is quite an arguable statement.

In my opinion, Atlanta holds a strong position as far as the Southeastern US is concerned....but not the ENTIRE South. I'm from Charlotte and realistic. No, we are not a HUGE city....as least not yet. If things keep going the way they are going

now in the next 15-20, the sprawl is going to be out of control.

But back to Atlanta,

Its A very important city in the South.

[Mr.Marc]

What's up everybody,

I just wanted to add that being from South Carolina, I do consider Atlanta an important city, but I never gave thought to the South having a Most Important City.

[Lunican]

Jacksonville, FL controls more than 23,000 route miles of railroad in 23 states, the District of Columbia and two Canadian provinces.

[brewerw]

No one uses railroads. That ould have been awsome 100 YEARS AGO!!!!!! And anyway, wouldn't cities like St. Louis and Louisville control more railroad? They were big railroading cities.

[Lunican]

You may be referring to passenger trains, but I am talking about freight. Almost everything you use is moved by rail; from all the consumer goods brought over from China in containers to the electricity you are using right now (coal for the majority of power plants in this country). And no, St Louis does not control any trains.

[vandiver49]

I voted yes but not b/c I think that their aren't other wonderful cities it the south. ATL, for the most part just happens to be the first to pioneer different ideas in a region of the country that historically resistant to change. It was the first in mass transit, the first major airport hub (back in the airline hayday with Eastern and Delta) The first major city in the South to have a Black Mayor. Minorities flock to the city b/c of the economic empowerment and is the number 2 (I think) for gays (lets be honest, does gay marriage even stand a chance anyway else in the south). Its these reasons that many people say ATL "isn't apart of the south" likening it a Northern (i.e. liberal) cities. But the fact is that ATL success has enabled CLT, NASH, JAX and BHM to also move ahead. I think that's the reason ATL is important.

BTW, Is the "South" defined more by geography (South of the Ohio R, East of the Miss. R) or historical (CSA) I tend to think its more geographical which is why I don't really mention TX...its a place unto itself