Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hybrid0NE

Best Comeback: Atlanta & Columbia

Best Comeback!: Atlanta vs. Columbia  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Which city rebounded best from it's ashes?

    • Atlanta
      26
    • Columbia
      12


Recommended Posts

atlantaskyline0un.jpgAerial5pts.jpg

250px-Sherman_railroad_destroy.jpg250px-Columbia_sc_ruins.jpg

I Guess you were thinking Columbia and Atlanta don't have very much in common; since Atlanta is major U.S. city that dominates it's home state while Columbia is a small city that divides it's state's control with 2 equally sized cities. However, they are much alike and were very similar until they were both burned to ruins during General Sherman's, marches through the South. More commonalities...

Both had similar Population (1860): Atlanta - 9,554; Columbia - 8,052

Incorporated in similar eras: Atlanta - 1847; Columbia - 1854

The State Capitols were relocated into their municipalities.

2 Counties within city limits: Atlanta - Fulton, Dekalb; Columbia - Richland, Lexington

Capture a small percentage of their Metro population within city limits.

Top Heavy, majority of sprawling development on their Northern fringes.

3 Major Interstates cross, Beltway Loops and State Freeway spur to the north (GA-400, SC-277).

College-towns, site of prominent state universities and colleges.

Successful Intown/Downtown Revitalization.

Five Points!

etc.

Share your thoughts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Another one from the UP Kindergarten Club. :lol:

What is the aim behind this thread, and the many others like it in the South forum? When you put one city up against another, you have to have your pads and helmet on every time because a slug-fest is inevitable.

Why dwell in the past? Look to the future and try to overcome the differences. It is virtually impossible to compare the two cities today as one is approximately five-times larger than the other and growing at a much faster rate. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one from the UP Kindergarten Club. :lol:

:lol: I'm glad to join you, it's not like you haven't posted "Best" topics in the Carolina forums.

Anyway, I found it interesting that the two places were very similar before they were burned and although they are night/day to each other now they've still got some similarities. I think I did a better job of providing history that some of our forumers may not have been aware of, it's okay to get off the "serious" stick sometimes Skyliner. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most central cities capture only a small portion of their metro populations.

Most major cities have 2, 3, or more major interstate highways and loops, along with state freeway spurs.

Most reasonably large cities have a "Five Points."

Most major cities host several well-regarded institutions of higher education.

Downtown/Intown revitalization is going on almost everywhere now.

Many metro areas experience lots of sprawl to the north and west largely because prevailing westerly winds kept the air cleaner in those areas, thereby making them more desirable for upper classes. Once "north" & "west" areas became fashionable, sprawl pushed development ever farther in those directions.

Apart from ancient history and the fact that both cities are state capitals, I don't see much that Columbia and Atlanta have in common that either doesn't have in common with many other cities.

To the question at hand, I think most would agree that if we were to compare where both cities were in the 1860s to where they are in the 2000s, Atlanta has made the most measurable progress.

P.S., Please remember to use the possessive "its" when appropriate. It's often easy to hit that apostrophe key inadvertently. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I have never considered how alike these two cities are (with the exception of size). I like that aerial shot of Columbia as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spartan, surely you don't consider these two cities anywhere near alike in size?

The photo of Atlanta above is absolutely NOT an equally positioned shot. Atlanta has many SUBURBS the same size - if not larger - than Columbia. A good aerial shot would show what I'm talking about. There is no reasonable comparison between these two cities regarding economic and population growth. Whomever voted for Columbia in the poll obviously lives in Columbia and hasn't been to Atlanta recently. Atlanta truly is worlds ahead in terms of post-Civil War recovery. :huh:

Here is one image which better depicts modern Atlanta, though it does not show the whole city in all its splendor.

View the photo here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hands down atlanta wins this by a land slide. But atlanta and columbia does have a lot in common.Which has been said before being the capital,college towns, demographic patterns,major highways that loop around the city.Atlanta has had the most success thus far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spartan, surely you don't consider these two cities anywhere near alike in size?

He did say "with the exception of size." :thumbsup:

I, for one, didn't realize how comparable the cities were in size around the time of the Civil War. I was aware of most of the other similarities though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spartan, surely you don't consider these two cities anywhere near alike in size?

The photo of Atlanta above is absolutely NOT an equally positioned shot. Atlanta has many SUBURBS the same size - if not larger - than Columbia. A good aerial shot would show what I'm talking about. There is no reasonable comparison between these two cities regarding economic and population growth. Whomever voted for Columbia in the poll obviously lives in Columbia and hasn't been to Atlanta recently. Atlanta truly is worlds ahead in terms of post-Civil War recovery. :huh:

Here is one image which better depicts modern Atlanta, though it does not show the whole city in all its splendor.

View the photo here

To be fair, (unless I am mistaken) Hybrid0NE lived in Columbia, then moved to Atlanta.

and I did say with the exception of size :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People all too often confuse size with desirable. It's not so clear to me that Atlanta has done such a good job vs Columbia when you consider the population of the actual city of Atlanta has not changed much in decades and the huge amount of growth there is in other cities in the metro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People all too often confuse size with desirable. It's not so clear to me that Atlanta has done such a good job vs Columbia when you consider the population of the actual city of Atlanta has not changed much in decades and the huge amount of growth there is in other cities in the metro.

Good points. However, this is one situation where I must disagree. Atlanta, much like every city in SC suffers from being too small in comparison to the rest of its Metro. While the City of Atlanta has seen a significant population decline since the 1970s, it is beginning to rise again. Columbia, on the other hand, has managed to annex a great deal more than Atlanta since the 1970s, so its apparant population decrease is neglidgible. Columbia's downtown neighborhoods have arguably suffered much less than Atlanta's. Columbia is also managing to expand into its suburban areas to capture some of the growth that Atlanta has missed out on.

I also think that it is hard to compare the growth of the suburban cities, since Columbia has so few incorportated in its area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My rare Atlanta boosterism - Atlanta has done a better job than most cities in the southeast & very comparable with leading national cities in terms of gaining population in the city center. Atlanta gained population in the downtown area in the 90's, very few cities can claim that.

This is becoming rather tiring - but municipal boundaries have very little to do with gauging the urban core's population gain.

Otherwise - I can't pick between my birth place & my current home, but there are of course comparisons. But most southern cities & towns are comparable, especially Carolina & north GA cities with the mill villages. Olympia in Columbia & Cabbagetown in Atlanta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both cities were losing population in the last few decades...Now both are actually reversing that trend and gaining population within the city limits and doing alot of infill development....Columbia has an edge because they are atleast starting to annex more than usual into the suburbs which Atlanta really can't anymore...We know they can't really be compared but it is cool how they have alot of similiarities....Oh yeah...Both cities dont reflect their states conservative views....Also the same size in square miles (both around 132) almost (when Ft. Jackson is included)....

This is a breath of fresh air from comparing ATL to Charlotte, Houston, Miami and other cities...Interesting thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spartan, surely you don't consider these two cities anywhere near alike in size?

The photo of Atlanta above is absolutely NOT an equally positioned shot. Atlanta has many SUBURBS the same size - if not larger - than Columbia. A good aerial shot would show what I'm talking about. There is no reasonable comparison between these two cities regarding economic and population growth. Whomever voted for Columbia in the poll obviously lives in Columbia and hasn't been to Atlanta recently. Atlanta truly is worlds ahead in terms of post-Civil War recovery. :huh:

Here is one image which better depicts modern Atlanta, though it does not show the whole city in all its splendor.

View the photo here

That is only true if size is the only indicator of worth. I live in a medium sized city because I have the best of both worlds - most of the amenities a big city has, but less than a 10 minute commute to work. I can come home for lunch and take side streets to and from work to avoid traffic. Many people who live in the Atlanta area drive an hour each way to work. In a typical 21 workday month they waste 35 more hours commuting than I do. That is 420 hours in a year; equal to 17 1/2 days!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is only true if size is the only indicator of worth. I live in a medium sized city because I have the best of both worlds - most of the amenities a big city has, but less than a 10 minute commute to work. I can come home for lunch and take side streets to and from work to avoid traffic. Many people who live in the Atlanta area drive an hour each way to work. In a typical 21 workday month they waste 35 more hours commuting than I do. That is 420 hours in a year; equal to 17 1/2 days!

I certainly can't disagree with you on that point, waccamatt. That is why I also choose to live in mid-sized Greenville. The best of both Worlds - without the hour-long commutes within the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amen to that; I love to visit New York, Boston and, to a lesser extent, Atlanta, but I have alot less stress and waste of time sitting in traffic living in Columbia. LA is even worse than Atlanta when it comes to commute time. I would be a basket case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.