Do these pictures give you the impression that Atlanta is a big city? (garages, architectural)

[DONNIEANDDONNA417]

no matter how you cut it...Atlanta is still a beautiful city...especially at night...ever drove down 75/85 around the grady curve at night...its spectacular

[Newsboy]

You can make any city look "big" with the right lens and direction, but only a handful of US cities look "big" when seen from a distance or across the horizon. Atlanta is one of them, and THIS is by far the BEST "big city" photo of ATL I've ever seen. It does not lie.

[rorqual]

Yes it does.

But lets be clear there no need for Chicago to butt in..the difference between Chicago and Atlanta skylines is much less than Chicago and NYC.

I have been to all the major cities in the US and NYC is the only one which is awe-inspiring in its skyscraper density (over 5000+) vs Chicago (900) vs Atlanta (500+).

[tikigod311]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

You can make any city look "big" with the right lens and direction, but only a handful of US cities look "big" when seen from a distance or across the horizon. Atlanta is one of them, and THIS is by far the BEST "big city" photo of ATL I've ever seen. It does not lie.

There is so much to love about that pic, any chance you have a higher res version?

My favorite view of Atlanta is going north on 75/85, it is probably the Grady curve. You already have a view of downtown, which is impressive in its own right, and then you round the corner and then there's midtown, with it's sleek modern buildings.

Its like you think you have seen it all, then you make a turn, then... BAM. Love it.

[ATLTJL]

I think what's really interesting about Atlanta's skyline is it hasn't changed dramatically since the early 90s. Sure, there was a buiding boom in the early 2000s and midtown got a couple of new skyscrapers, but most of these buildings sort of blend into the skyline, maybe fill it out, but very few became iconic structures because they don't stand out. It's amazing that the most recognizabe shapes on the skyline are still mosty buidings constructed in the 80s and 90s (maybe the Westin was built in the late 70s, I'm not sure).

In contrast, Buckhead's skyline has changed dramatically in the past 10 years. Maybe it's because it didn't have many iconic structures to compete with before, but it has really grown a lot in character recently.

I wouldn't mind seeing midtown and/or downtown add a few new skyscrapers that really add character to the skyline.

[brownhornet]

People whining about Chicago being mentioned when the original poster mentioned it himself.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I think what's really interesting about Atlanta's skyline is it hasn't changed dramatically since the early 90s. Sure, there was a buiding boom in the early 2000s and midtown got a couple of new skyscrapers, but most of these buildings sort of blend into the skyline, maybe fill it out, but very few became iconic structures because they don't stand out. It's amazing that the most recognizabe shapes on the skyline are still mosty buidings constructed in the 80s and 90s (maybe the Westin was built in the late 70s, I'm not sure).

In contrast, Buckhead's skyline has changed dramatically in the past 10 years. Maybe it's because it didn't have many iconic structures to compete with before, but it has really grown a lot in character recently.

I wouldn't mind seeing midtown and/or downtown add a few new skyscrapers that really add character to the skyline.

i can't disagree with you more about midtown— in the early 90s there was no skyline over piedmont park. today there is one. sure, most of those buildings are not really iconic, but i would say that the symphony tower is pretty iconic, as well as the four seasons hotel building. in the past 20 years, midtown has changed dramatically, especially around tech square which used to be a run down red light district, and at 10th and 14th streets near piedmont park.

i do agree though, that from a distance there aren't that many characteristic buildings that are known for being in atlanta only. the last really tall (nyc/chicago style) building built here was the bank of america tower in 1991, and while it looks great from a distance it does a terrible disservice to the streetscape. in fact from the point of view of north avenue, it would probably be better off without the tower today.

i would like to see more of the big projects— 1,000+ foot skyscrapers and whatnot to add to our skyline. but when you look at it from the viewpoint of the streets themselves, any infill is good at all and having to have a huge skyscraper just adds to our ego. we should instead focus on the interaction that new development has with the streetscape and try not to repeat the BoA tower which overall has a negative impact on the immediate surroundings.

[bryantm3]

and as for the chicago comparisons, people from chicago don't get upset, okay? atlanta is not a complete city like nyc and chicago are— we're still working on building it! atlanta did not rise above regional importance until the 80s or 90s while chicago and nyc have been national cities for a hundred years or more. when we compare atlanta to chicago we're viewing chicago as a good example of where to go next. we're not saying that atlanta is like chicago, rather that it has the potential to be a city like chicago. but on the same token don't come down here and badmouth our city when the city isn't even filled out yet, okay?

[MathmanMathman]

Places like Chicago, NYC, and Boston are hemmed in on one side by water so the skyscrapers are more concentrated. Atlanta, Dallas, and even Houston spread out so the "big city" effect is not so pronounced.

[Atlanta_BD]

Chicago skyline at night.





Sorry. Couldn't help it lol.

I do like Midtown at night.