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.
Also, don't forget the fact that the ONLY white, Southern politician to testify before Congress in favor of the passage of Civil Rights legislation was the Mayor of Atlanta, Ivan Allen. It is also very telling that this was the ONLY large American city that did not explode into rioting after the assasination of MLK.
All of these various things played a part in making Atlanta the capitol of the South.
Maybe a little but the single event that gave Atlanta the title of "Capital of the South" was the Civil war. For with out the Civil war certain technology wouldn't have been required as much like railroads for transporting goods and war supplies to the union army. More importantly is post-Civil war years known as the Reconstruction era. During the reconstruction era Atlanta was worked on and brought up to be the industrialized capital of Georgia and the South which is what gave it the boost it needed to be what it is today.
As the reconstruction of Atlanta came into sight many blacks and whites came back as new opportunity arose there giving it the reputation from there on in as the capital of the South.
Georgia didn’t fare too well on this front either …
And AL and MS don't have anything close to 'Atlanta' to prop them up. Atlanta could be argued in a way to make Georgia look even worse. Even with an international mega-polis the state can't get it together.
There is grinding poverty in South Georgia most of us cannot imagine. But another factor in the South is the remaining damage from a false theory. IMHO a civil rights spectacle does yet belong in the State. It is an attempt to paint over an ugly sign.
I dont think civil rights has anything to do with it. Its simpler than that:
If you take Atlanta out of Georgia, all you have is Mississippi. In other words, outside of Atlanta, Georgia is pretty poedunk (besides Savannah). The rest of those small cities suck in my opinion.
Mississippi had to create gambling just to get business to come.Cities were dying.Augusta.Columbus,Savannah are booming.Savannah is fast becoming one of more and more of an important shipping center.Macon's Forturne are also turning around.Columbus you have 3 Forturne 500 companies headquartered there.In the Augusta area you have some of the highest incomes and educational attainment in the state.You really should drive through many of those cities and see the incredible amount of growth.Still not Atlanta but not podunck either.
Tennessee has many cities but with the exception of Nashville and Chattanooga(of which a part is in Georgia)they are at a stand still.Florida has cities but of course that has more to do with beaches.North Carolina cities overall are not that much bigger.It may be or may not be important that metro Atlanta takes up almost all of N.georgia.Over 20 counties!! No other city in the U.S. is that spread out.
It's because Atlanta is a regional hub as well as a state hub.
Although, for example, Texas has two major cities, it also has a population of 23 million plus, compared to 9 million in Georgia. Besides which, Houston is sort of an anomoly, like Detroit or Pittsburgh or Kansas City -- the center of a huge international industry.
Florida traditionally had only one large city, Miami. That got changed by retirees and Disney.
It's not really a state-by-state deal, anyway. Atlanta really affects the size of cities in eastern Tennessee, South Carolina, northern Florida, Alabama, and even Mississippi.
Also, the distance between regional hubs is largely determined by population density. The California coast has three, one of which is a national hub. The northeast also has three very close together, also including a national hub, and I suppose you could say the same about the northern midwest -- Chicago hasn't grown as fast as some parts of the country, but it still counts as the third national hub, IMO.
It's because Atlanta is a regional hub as well as a state hub.
Although, for example, Texas has two major cities, it also has a population of 23 million plus, compared to 9 million in Georgia. Besides which, Houston is sort of an anomoly, like Detroit or Pittsburgh or Kansas City -- the center of a huge international industry.
Florida traditionally had only one large city, Miami. That got changed by retirees and Disney.
It's not really a state-by-state deal, anyway. Atlanta really affects the size of cities in eastern Tennessee, South Carolina, northern Florida, Alabama, and even Mississippi.
Also, the distance between regional hubs is largely determined by population density. The California coast has three, one of which is a national hub. The northeast also has three very close together, also including a national hub, and I suppose you could say the same about the northern midwest -- Chicago hasn't grown as fast as some parts of the country, but it still counts as the third national hub, IMO.
You people kill me. How could Atlanta be a regional hub with the world's largest airport and it's currently the fastest growing metropolitan area? Sounds a bit naive.
Is it just me or does it seem like states like FL and NC have several big metro areas but GA mainly just has 1 big metro area. In NC there are 3 metro areas I can think of with over 1 mill people ( Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro/Winston Salem). FL has several large metro areas ( Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville). I dont think Augusta, Savannah, Macon, or Columbus have metro areas of over 1 million. It seems like you always hear about most jobs going to the Atlanta metro area, while in other states like NC and FL the jobs are more spread out over the whole state.
So true. Georgia historically has only focused on Atlanta growth. Governors and the legislature have primarily been focused on metro Atlanta growth and the other secondary cities were treated as if they were under the radar. More recently, there has been a stepping up of infrastructure and highway monies, for example, to help the secondary cities. Look at a map of Georgia. All interstates lead into Atlanta. Emphasis on building the Savannah River Parkway to connect Augusta to Savannah is only a recent development, likewise to connect Augusta to Macon. I20 expansion in Augusta in the vicinity of the Augusta National Golf Course is only a recent development. Georgia invested and invested and invested in highways/infrastructure for Atlanta and Atlanta grew. Georgia ignored and ignored and ignored the second tier cities and only now is investment in highways/infrastructure beginning to make a significant surge. Arguably it's only because Atlanta's sprawled growth has become more of a problem, to the point that future growth needs to be spread out to the second tier cities for the sake of Atlanta's viability, the available water posing one of the biggest risks to not spreading out the growth.
If Georgia had another north-south interstate/highway connecting the eastern upstate to Savannah via Augusta and had another east-west interstate/highway connecting Columbus to Augusta via Macon, Georgia would see population boosts in those metro areas.
Alright, some people's comments on here are downright false. First of all, Atlanta does not receive the lion's share of state funding, in fact the City of Atlanta and the surrounding counties are donor entities--meaning they put into state coffers much more than what they get back.
Second of all back in the 90s, the State implemented GRIP (Georgia Road Improvement Program) which is a huge road construction intiative ensuring that all 159 counties are served by a 4-lane divided highway. Please believe that the widening of US 19 in rural Schley County isn't funded solely by the taxpayers there. A significant portion of the projects in the GRIP program are pork where there isn't enough demand to warrant road widenings.
Third of all, state transportation funding is done under Congressional Balancing, meaning that all 13 districts receive the same amount of funding. This is a rather obtuse way of funding massive transportation imporovements because building a road in or around Atlanta is significantly more expensive than building a road in rural Georgia given land costs, materials, etc.
Atlanta does more than its share in providing tax revenue for state coffers and in return we're getting the shaft and have witnessed a severe deterioration in our transportation infrastructure and quality of life. Keep up the anti-Atlanta sentiment if you want because you know what? If we can't move, then Georgia can't move.
This is a fascinating topic, and one I have thought about quite often. I have always found it interesting how some states (or countries) tend to have one clearly dominant city, while other states (or countries) have two or even three or four cities that at least compete (or slice up the pie) for the title of No. 1 in that state in terms of economic, political, educational, cultural and population might.
As a native, small-town South Carolinian, I never gave much consideration to leaving the state until after I graduated from college! If you grew up in S.C. and your world didn't really expand beyond that, you had three "big" cities from which to choose: Greenville/Spartanburg, Columbia and Charleston. Again, not big to people from the nation's biggest cities, but the Big Three of that state. Greenville/Spartanburg has a lot of economic pull, the political power and to some degree the educational power is centered in Columbia, while Charleston is a big port and the clear winner in culture and "old money."
In some ways, Augusta and Savannah have the misfortune of being on "the wrong side" of the Savannah River. If either of those cities were on the S.C. side, they'd definitely be bigger fish in a smaller pond and wouldn't be as much in Atlanta's shadow! And if South Carolina laid claim to both of those cities, South Carolina's gravitas, so to speak, would gain at Georgia's expense, though Georgia would still be the bigger player just because of Atlanta.
Anyway, there are some states where one city pretty well rules the roost: Georgia (Atlanta), New York (NYC), Illinois (Chicago), Indiana (Indianapolis), Arkansas (Little Rock), Oregon (Portland), Idaho (Boise), Iowa (Des Moines), Massachusetts (Boston) come to mind.
Then there are some states where there is a second city offering viable competition to the big-shot city: Pennsylvania (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh), Missouri (St. Louis and Kansas City), Wisconsin (Milwaukee and Madison), Virginia (Richmond and the Norfolk metro area), Kentucky (Louisville and Lexington), for instance.
Then you have states where the influence is spread out among three or more cities: South Carolina (above); Florida (Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa/St. Petersburg, Miami); Ohio (Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland); California (Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, San Diego); North Carolina (Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem).
It's the same for countries as states. Rome in Italy and Berlin in Germany don't have nearly the same influence in their counties as London in England or Paris in France. There is no Frankfurt or Munich or Venice or Florence or Milan equivalent in England or France. Manchester and Lyon may have their charms, but they just don't provide the same gravitas.
As for desirability as a place to live, that's so totally subjective as to be useless to argue. I just moved to Atlanta, and I'm not particularly liking it (but unlike others, I don't "blame" the city). The irony is in my 20s and 30s, I really wanted to be here (or an even bigger city) and traveled here a lot. But I've changed.
Now in my 40s, I've come to appreciate some of the things a smaller city has to offer. I'd much rather live somewhere like Asheville, Athens, Gainesville, Key West, Charlottesville, Savannah, Chapel Hill, Huntsville, Knoxville or Wilmington (or back in Charlotte for that matter). A smaller, university-oriented town or a place with a bit of a funky vibe and a nice, natural setting suits me better right now. But this is where I could find a job.
During the years I lived in Atlanta, I saw Atlanta grow in both population and infrastructure. During that same period of time, the secondary cities in Georgia were relatively stagnant. That was no accident. Ironically enough, now that the genie is out of the bottle, Atlanta will keep growing and growing until there really IS a water problem. What was seen last year is just the beginning. At the same time, expect the secondary cities in Georgia to have relatively no water availability issues going forward.
Guess what else NYC, Chicago, Indianapolis, Little Rock, Portland, Boise, Des Moines, and Boston all have in common? Ample water flow and water (river, lake) flowing smack dab through the center of town. Guess what city was afraid of running out of water last year and doesn't have water flow through the center of town. Sometimes a state has positioned its cities so that having only one major city doesn't necessarily threaten resources. Georgia is not one. So expect the same resources that were scarce last year to be spread over at least an additional 1 million people going forward.
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.
