Is Atlanta the most Important City in the South

[bobliocatt]

One more thing. Skyscrpaers.com is one of the most reliable resources that I know of on cities and building. Go to their website and look at the description of Atlanta. Skyscrapers.com

And I quote

"About Atlanta: Birthplace of Coca-Cola (the most recognized brand name in the world) and the unofficial Capital of the South, Atlanta is one of America's most prosperous cities........"

Well im not the only one who thinks so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Although its a cool site, Skyscrapers.com (Emporis) is very unreliable. I've noticed that its missing several skyscrapers in Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando, Fort Myers and Miami. If it has holes for all of Florida's major cities, then I know there are holes somewhere else.

In the end we'll have to agree to disagree, because in my opinion Central Florida (we're I grew up), Miami, Houston, Dallas & DC are all a part of the South. With that being said, Atlanta isn't on a higher level than any of these cities and therefore, is not the Capitol of the South (South including all of Florida and Eastern Texas).

[benjamin]

Although its a cool site, Skyscrapers.com (Emporis) is very unreliable.  I've noticed that its missing several skyscrapers in Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando, Fort Myers and Miami.  If it has holes for all of Florida's major cities, then I know there are holes somewhere else. 

In the end we'll have to agree to disagree, because in my opinion Central Florida (we're I grew up), Miami, Houston, Dallas & DC are all a part of the South.  With that being said, Atlanta isn't on a higher level than any of these cities and therefore, is not the Capitol of the South (South including all of Florida and Eastern Texas).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I guess what we could say is that with our personal views of the south, our opinions make sense.

[brewerw]

One thing good for atlanta, skyscraperwise is that Houston's last big skyscraper was built in 87. Atlanta's has grown enornous since then and continues to grow. Atlanta is also growing faster that Houston not only in there evergrowing metro but also in the city.

Just so yall know, I dont think there is a capitol of the south or a most important city. They all contribute tons to the south and are all very different except for one thing, they are almost all growing outrageously.

[bobliocatt]

When it comes to the big skyscrapers, keep your eye on Miami. The boom its undergoing is crazy. It's new tallest was completed last year and now another new tallest is about to get underway. In its downtown area, there's several towers in 50 - 60 story range already under construction now. The skyline you see today will be totally different in about 2 or 3 years.

[benjamin]

That sounds cool. Anyways I just pulled up some data to make one last point. Atlanta metro is growing more than any of these other cities in recent years:

Here is estimated populations for these metros with the exception of Miami because one of the estimations included west palm beach whereas one didn't. Anyways...

Keep in mind these are only for about a 4 year period

Atlanta- April 2000 pop: 4,112,000 August 2004 pop: 4,950,000 Change: 838,000 (20.37%)

Houston- April 2000 pop: 4,669,000 August 2004 pop: 5,250,000 Change: 581,000 (12.44%)

Dallas- April 2000 pop: 5,221,000 August 2004 pop: 5,750,000 Change: 529,000(10.13%)

DC- April 2000 pop: 7,608,000 August 2004 pop: 7,950,000 Change: 342,000 (4.49%)

If you want the sources ask and I'll give them but im too lazy right now.

[monsoon]

[cityboi]

Miami is the vacation and party destination of the south but I think Atlanta is the most important city of the south. It is the city that represents the new south. Atlanta and Miami are probabally the only "real" urban cities in the southeast. All the others like Nashville, Charlotte, Memphis, Louisville, New Orleans, Orlando and Tampa/St. Petersburg are all secondary to those two cities. Then there are the 3rd tier southern cities such as Richmond, Birmingham, Norfolk, Raleigh/Durham, Greensboro/Winston-Salem, Montgomery and Little Rock

[Brickell]

ok ok.

Atlanta can be the capital of the south so long as Miami get's to be the capital of the Americas.

[alexr15]

Your mathematics in calculating percengage change is incorrect as are your numbers. 

According to the US Census, Atlanta's MSA population was on 01APR2000 was  4,247,981.  You should provide your sources.  And you neglected to included the faster growing metros of Austin, and Raleigh for example. 

In terms of population growth, Atlanta isn't any more impressive than the rest of the South. 

Here is an interesting map showing decline and growth of US Metro areas since the 2000 census.  Atlanta is a growing metro, but not not overwhelmingly so in the South.  Just average.   

Table courtesy of ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What are you talking about? Atlanta's growth is anything but average, in the south or anywhere in the country. In terms of raw numbers which is the only thing that really matters as percentages are misleading, Atlanta is adding more people to its metro than any other place in the South with maybe the exceptions of Dallas and Houston and even them im not sure about. Percentages are misleading and I dont know why people always quote them and say things like "Oh X town grew 80%. It's the fastest growing such and such..." or something like that. Think of it this way (this should be common sense but...) say X town has 500 people. If it adds 500 people growth would be 100%. Now Y town has 1000 people and adds 750 people which is 75%. Although percentages would lead you to believe that X town grew more, in reality Y town added more people. Like I said, that should be common sense but for some....

[monsoon]

[alexr15]

"You should provide your sources."

[monsoon]

[benjamin]

Well if you want to go by raw numbers instead of percentages, then Atlanta is still average among the 5 big metros in the South. 

Metro Pop Change 2000-2003

1. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA,  428,126

2. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA  375,028

3. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA MSA 362,051

4. Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX MSA  360,326

5. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL MSA281,232

In terms of metro size, Atlanta is the smallest

1. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX MSA,  5,589,670

2. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Miami Beach, FL MSA 5,288,796

3. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA  5,090,435

4. Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX MSA  5,075,733

5. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA MSA 4,610,032

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, you say atlanta is average amoung southern cities for growth, yet you dont take into acount your second presented set of data which shows that atlanta is smaller than these other cities. When you take that into acount, atlanta has grown a lot more than these other cities. Also, your and my estimates for population are different so someone is wrong here. I got my estimates from Wikipedia online encyclopedia.

And you said that my data is inaccurate yet even wtih your new number of what atlanta's metro was in 2000 that you mentioned in your last post, atlanta would still be faster growing than those other cities. ALso i didn';t mention austin and other cities like that because they are not on the same large scale as atlanta, houston, and dallas. Pretty soon i think atlanta will outgrow both dallas and houston.

[monsoon]

[bobliocatt]

Who cares how fast these metros are growing out in their suburbs. Building new tract homes and Walmarts in Jonesboro isn't impressive or worthy of urban influence or importance. That doesn't really mean much. I'd be more interested to see how are these places growing in their inner cities?

[monsoon]

[bobliocatt]

Inner city population growth, 2000-2003

(For the South's largest metro areas)

1. Ft Worth, 44,023, 8.1% (metro Dallas)

2. Arlington, Tx, 22,038, 6.6% (metro Dallas)

3. Miami, 14,378, 4.0%

4. Houston, 56,057, 2.9%

5. Dallas, 19,729, 1.7%

6. Atlanta, 6,578, 1.6%

7. Washington DC, -8,675, -1.5%

[vicupstate]

Inner city population growth, 2000-2003

(For the South's largest metro areas)

1. Ft Worth, 44,023, 8.1% (metro Dallas)

2. Arlington, Tx, 22,038, 6.6% (metro Dallas)

3. Miami, 14,378, 4.0%

4. Houston, 56,057, 2.9%

5. Dallas, 19,729, 1.7%

6. Atlanta, 6,578, 1.6%

7. Washington DC, -8,675, -1.5%

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[monsoon]

[bobliocatt]

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}>

These estimates are for city limits only. I don't know the number of square miles for each city, but I do know that Miami is, by far the smallest & densest, only being 35 square miles with nearly 380,000 residents living within those limits.

Nevertheless, despite having the lowest metro population growth (among the South's largest cities), it still is managing to add double the population (compared to the actual cities of Atlanta, Dallas, & DC), in terms of absolute and percentage numbers. It's also outpacing Houston, in this department, as well.

To me, when people post these metro growth numbers, that's much more impressive (actually building up the city's core), then continuing to mow down trees and popping up new suburban subdivisions, strip malls & gas stations 50 miles from the city's CBD.

[alexr15]

If you read back through this long thread you will find that Fulton & DeKalb counties (make up most of the area inside the perimeter) are growing very slowly.  Fulton until recently was actually losing population.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

[monsoon]

[mjcatl2]

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.

[mjcatl2]

Oh just noticed the "top 5" (largest) mSouthern metro list.

It is ridiculous to put DC in any Southern listing. It is an oddity of metropolitan geographical boundaries that puts Northern Virginia in Virginia and thus, DC as a Southern city. DC is not Southern at all.

[alexr15]

True, but in Atlanta's case, it does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What, ok, Atlanta's core growth is not sprawl. I said that alot of Houston's core growth may, in fact, be sprawl simply because the core of Houston is 600 sq. miles. Sprawl in city limits is still sprawl. It's just sprawl with a Houston address compared with sprawl in Atlanta that would not have an Atlanta address. I read somewhere that you can drive for 70 miles across Houston and still be in Houston city limits. If you drive for 70 miles across Atlanta you will be in exurbia at either end. Also, if Atlanta went about annexing every suburb it could its core population could be a lot higher than it is...