Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Part of the argument comes down to whether one would actually use those "amenities" on a regular enough basis to justify paying for the convenience of living near them. Sure, Atlanta proper has the symphony, a few theaters, the zoo, the aquarium, sports venues, etc., but if you're not one to use those amenities (or not use them often), "having" them is irrelevant. If you're big into symphony concerts, it's probably a good idea to live somewhere convenient to where they play- if you never go to the symphony (or go once in a lifetime), proximity to the symphony means nothing. Same goes for the zoo, aquarium, World of Coke, or any other touristy attractions- it's easy enough to drive into Atlanta for the day and hit any of those (or multiple), on the once a year (or less) that you might want to go to them.
The average "dual income middle class couple" probably isn't utilizing most of the intown amenities that can't be found in the suburbs often enough to make the case for living intown viable.
BobK - Your point is well taken. Certainly, I have access to all of the ITP amenities, but with three kids and long work hours, I rarely use them. Yes, I love the symphony and live within a ten minute walk; however, I go maybe once a season. The same can be said for my infrequent visits to the other intown attractions. I'm very glad that others on here can and do use those things more frequently than I do. But, it ain't easy regularly making time for those things with a full household of children, dogs and other personal responsibilities. I'm sure that there are many suburbanites who enjoy those attractions as much if not more than us intown denizens. And, the suburbs do have their own attractions - cultural events, festivals, parks, family attractions, etc. Heck, I recall going to hear the Johns Creek symphony a year or so ago. They are quite good!
Well, I would say that line of thought is circumstantial at best.
I personally use the city's non-touristy amenities on a daily basis without a single need to leave to go OTP.
So somehow, my line of thought is "circumstantial at best", but you using " the city's non-touristy amenities on a daily basis without a single need to leave to go OTP" isn't????
You've basically made my point for me- for some (like you), proximity to intown amenities makes sense because you use them on a regular basis, while for many others, paying a premium to have that proximity doesn't make sense.
If I misunderstood your post, many apologies. From my years in London, I did not get to know many core dwellers. There was not the distinctions between inner dwellers and suburban dwellers.
You did. I never argued that urban Americans are radically different from suburbanites. On the contrary.
I said there are in fact too many similarities between city and suburbs, especially in Sun Belt cities, for the cities to be valued that much more than the suburbs. As for the difference between American city dwellers/suburbanites on the one hand, and American rural areas, on the other - well...yeah; you have quite a bit of a distinction there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintmarks
The thing that shocked me was the distinction between class... the jump to judge someone because of the station in life they were "predestined" to become because of the station in life they were born into. Us Americans have a truly more democratic mindset as far as class and upward mobility. We are taught from an early age that you can become whatever you want with a determination to work hard and get an education.
Of course class distinctions remain in the US, but not near to what I experienced in the UK. I think this plays a part in the overall difference you are seeing in the US and must be understood to then grasp more symptomatic things like strip malls and dining habits.
Yeap.
I agree with your view - as long as you talk about the social/cultural dimensions of class.
When it comes to the material dimension, the US has much more dramatic class distinctions than Europe...and definitely not the kind you can overcome with the "when-you-wish-upon-a-star" line of thought. The cultural ethos would have us all believe otherwise, but we know better.
Either way, the US vs. Europe "social class" part is a completely different ball game.
This argument would have legs if the price of living in Central Atlanta was comparable to the cost of living in a Central London borough. It's not. Not even close.
The higher end property that does exist in the City of Atlanta I think is appropriately priced. Or should one pay bottom barrel prices for an Buckhead estate or Midtown penthouse? Sure, Atlanta may not compare to the amenities London has to offer but isn't as if there are no amenities in Atlanta for which one would get a good ROI for living in a top dollar neighborhood. For most people though, "top dollar" in any higher end Atlanta neighborhood is $300,000 to $500,000 (or much lower depending on the neighborhood) for a decent sized home. We're not exactly talking "breaking the bank" type of money for even a dual income middle class couple.
Again, I am not comparing Atlanta to London. This was established earlier in the thread because it would be completely unfair and irrelevant.
I am comparing the "London - Burbs" gap with the "Atlanta - Burbs" gap; and I am feeling that the city of Atlanta is over-rated relative to its burbs, whereas London is not over-rated relative to its burbs/villages, etc.
Then again, this is why you have so few people living in metro Atlanta and so many choosing to live in its suburbs, exurbs instead. For many, Atlanta is just not worth the premium when compared to its burbs, especially when you take into account the ease with each suburbanites can zip on highways right into the city.
The same cannot be said for Europe. Once you're "out there" in the suburbs, villages, small towns of Europe, you don't zip as easily into the downtown of a large metropolis. The travel can be cumbersome.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobKovacs
So somehow, my line of thought is "circumstantial at best", but you using " the city's non-touristy amenities on a daily basis without a single need to leave to go OTP" isn't????
You've basically made my point for me- for some (like you), proximity to intown amenities makes sense because you use them on a regular basis, while for many others, paying a premium to have that proximity doesn't make sense.
How exactly? I said for myself I do not use the touristy stuff very often, but (in my mind at least) that's a very small amount of what Atlanta has to offer. I'm talking about stuff like the Aquarium or the World of Coke. I'm not talking about things like the Symphony or the High or theaters.
Going a step further, I'm more so talking about dining or shopping or entertainment options. We have more than enough of an abundance ITP to keep one busy quite a bit.
Many "millions of people" do not enjoy Atlanta.
Many millions of people enjoy (and some just settle for) the SUBURBS of Atlanta; and for all those transplants from cities that are "the way they should be", I can show you masses of individuals who choose to STAY in the aforementioned cities, at a premium - exactly because they are the way most people know a city SHOULD be.
Moreover, the people you point to, that are moving into the Atlanta area from HCOL parts of the country, are mostly drawn to the Atlanta suburbs, not to the metro area. Many make such a choice because they are simply priced out of the large metro areas (with cities the way they "should be"), not because they would still choose to move here if they had tons of money to live well in the classic city.
I do not speak. The market does.
You pretend to know an awful lot about the choices people make...it comes across as arrogance, but maybe it's just condescension.
You do understand that a large majority of the people you're referring to that choose to stay in the aforementioned cities LIVE IN THE SUBURBS, correct? I'm sure Boston is the kind of city that you approve of, but more than 90% of the people that live there do so in suburbs.
A city should be however an individual wants it to be in order to enjoy life there. You don't get to make that choice for me or anyone else. I think you may be placing a little too much stock in what you read online, because in reality the majority of Americans (or anyone else for that matter) don't seek out these urban, dense environments. What they do seek out is suburban-style living, as evidenced by the trend for about 5 decades.
Going a step further, I'm more so talking about dining or shopping or entertainment options. We have more than enough of an abundance ITP to keep one busy quite a bit.
And there's more than an abundance OTP for most folks as well. Somehow we manage to eat, shop, and entertain ourselves just fine without trekking to downtown/midtown every night/weekend, so I'm not seeing where you're going with this......
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by syracusa
Again, I am not comparing Atlanta to London. This was established earlier in the thread because it would be completely unfair and irrelevant.
I am comparing the "London - Burbs" gap with the "Atlanta - Burbs" gap; and I am feeling that the city of Atlanta is over-rated relative to its burbs, whereas London is not over-rated relative to its burbs/villages, etc.
Then again, this is why you have so few people living in metro Atlanta and so many choosing to live in its suburbs, exurbs instead. For many, Atlanta is just not worth the premium when compared to its burbs, especially when you take into account the ease with each suburbanites can zip on highways right into the city.
The same cannot be said for Europe. Once you're "out there" in the suburbs, villages, small towns of Europe, you don't zip as easily into the downtown of a large metropolis. The travel can be cumbersome.
Another aspect that explains the sharper divide.
No, that's not it at all. The biggest reason why you have more people (among many) you have way more people living in the burbs vs the city is that it is incredible hard for a middle class family to afford to purchase a home in the city. At least one in size that Americans have become accustomed to. So in that sense it's not about seeing the value, it is plainly just not possible in most circumstances without a huge trade off in living space. Of course, this is hardly a problem specific to Atlanta. This is true in every American city (except those who have massive borders like Houston), even in the vaunted Northeast. In those cities specifically, the only way a middle class person could afford a place is if the home has been in the family for generations or due to rent stabilization...both of which is rare and nonexistent in Atlanta, respectively.
For me, I live in a condo I own which would be considered by most Atlantans/Americans to be a shoe box. Since I have lived in far denser cities (NYC, Mumbai, Manila), it's a mansion in comparable to places I have lived before so it doesn't bother me. I live and work within short walk distance of train station, so I commute by transit which is a must for me. I am also a fan of dining, art, and live music...all of these things in my opinion Atlanta does very well (I know there are people who violently disagree with this, but I also don't care.) And since I was able to purchase my home for a very awesome price, the return on investment for me personally has been awesome. Sure, I could have lived out in Gwinnett county or somewhere and gotten a lot more house for a lot less than I paid, and still drive in to the city for the things I like to do here, but that sort of thing isn't important to me. Actually, it's something I would hate since I hate driving for longer than 30 minutes.
For the record of this thread though, I do not bash anyone who lives OTP or look down on them. OTP is actually quite a lovely place, but not just for me.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobKovacs
And there's more than an abundance OTP for most folks as well. Somehow we manage to eat, shop, and entertain ourselves just fine without trekking to downtown/midtown every night/weekend, so I'm not seeing where you're going with this......
Did I say there isn't? I was just countering the idea that there is no ROI for living in the city of Atlanta or that one who does needs stuff in OTP. Ok, that's a lie. I need Honey Pig in my life. But that's it.
I live ITP and while I dream for a bigger, nicer, cheaper home in the burbs, I like the fact that I commute no more than 4-5 miles round trip per day. I spend as little time in the car as I can. When I'm home at 5pm/530pm, most people begin their commute home. We don't live in town because of the restaurants, theaters, symphony, etc - though I like that it's there when we have the time . I just like the fact that at the point in my life, I value time more than an expansive home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
