Polytoners from Atlanta?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah. But not for long. I have to move to crappy Atlanta!

This place is crappy as well. I loved the city I just moved from last fall. It was awesome. This one sucks. But so does ATL. I mean they have a decent hockey team, but it still kind of sucks if you know what I mean.

They have hockey in Atlanta?!

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Pekka
Yeah. But not for long. I have to move to crappy Atlanta!

This place is crappy as well. I loved the city I just moved from last fall. It was awesome. This one sucks. But so does ATL. I mean they have a decent hockey team, but it still kind of sucks if you know what I mean.

They have a decent hockey team in what league? Not the NHL... (see the Hossa trade... )

[Ben Kenobi]

That's not a very ingenious argument. The population density in the Atlanta metro area (21,000km² vs 34,000km² for Southern Finland) is also a good chunk higher than in the rest of the state of Georgia.

True, but that's a function again, of population density. The fact that cities in Europe are reluctant to sprawl means that they are both smaller and less reliant on vehicles.

Merely pointing at lower population densities isn't a sufficient explanation.

I'm going to be blunt here. If he wants to get around in Atlanta he's going to need a car period. If it were NYC it would be a different story, but everywhere else, you pretty much need a car to go around and get the essentials.

Europe in general (Finland is an outlier) has vastly higher population density then North America. In Finland, the attitude is more shifted towards public transportation, where America frankly doesn't care all that much. The expectation is that everyone has a vehicle to use.

I agree it isn't just population density, but that is a big part of why Americans prefer vehicles. It's too glib to say there are cultural differences without delving into the whys and wherefores.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but that's a function again, of population density. The fact that cities in Europe are reluctant to sprawl means that they are both smaller and less reliant on vehicles.

It's just as much a function of very generous definitions in America of what constitutes a metro area.

Europe in general (Finland is an outlier) has vastly higher population density then North America. In Finland, the attitude is more shifted towards public transportation, where America frankly doesn't care all that much. The expectation is that everyone has a vehicle to use.

I agree it isn't just population density, but that is a big part of why Americans prefer vehicles. It's too glib to say there are cultural differences without delving into the whys and wherefores.

What the situation is like in Belgium in terms of land use and transportation has little bearing on Finland. There's no reason why Nordic cities shouldn't sprawl unrelentlessly were it just a matter of available space.

[Ben Kenobi]

What the situation is like in Belgium in terms of land use and transportation has little bearing on Finland. There's no reason why Nordic cities shouldn't sprawl unrelentlessly were it just a matter of available space.

It's a difference in attitude. I had a Russian friend we had a few arguments over this. He had a car, but whenever possible he avoided driving it. When I had one I drove it everywhere I could. In my case, I liked the freedom and the privacy of not having to ride busses, etc.

The general European attitude seems to be more in favour of the collective, that everyone should travel together for the benefit of all.

[Kontiki]

I strongly doubt it has much to do with a more "collective" attitude and more to do with the fact that having a reliable public transit network that goes just about everywhere you'd want to go is much more convenient in a dense urban environment than fighting traffic and looking for parking (not to mention the cost). That's why you find high transit ridership in North American cities (core, not metro area, though that ofter works too) like New York, Chicago and Toronto.

[snoopy369]

I do think Americans (and possibly Canadians, I don't know that many of them) have a much greater sense of privacy/individualism than Europeans. I don't necessarily consider Europeans to be 'collectivists', more that Americans are far up the line of 'individualists' for the most part. That undoubtedly contributes to the less use of public transit and increased ownership of cars.

I suspect largely, however, it is the 'suburban' mentality of most Americans, while Europeans mostly live in 'urban' locations - ie, when they ARE in a city, it's generally higher density than American city/suburb combinations. Cities with high populations in or near the center will have more residential amenities than areas where most of the population lives relatively far from the city center.

[VetLegion]

You people make me wish we had branching threads on this forum.

[Imran Siddiqui]

WTF?!

Stop talking about Vancouver!

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
WTF?!

Stop talking about Vancouver!

QFT!!


Toronto's subway/transit doesn't go to the airport either.

[snoopy369]

Split off... go to the vancouver thread to discuss vancouver

[Wezil]

Speaking of trains.... Atlanta was named after a railroad.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, Terminus (the original name) was .

[Wezil]

wiki has a terribly inaccurate entry for the place then:

On December 21, 1836 the Georgia General Assembly voted to build the Western and Atlantic Railroad to provide a trade route to the Midwest.[14] Following the forced removal of the Cherokee Nation between 1838 and 1839 the newly depopulated area was opened for the construction of a railroad. The area around the eastern terminus to the line began to develop first. By 1842, the settlement had six buildings and 30 residents and the town was renamed "Marthasville".[15] After a few renames, the Chief Engineer of the Georgia Railroad, J. Edgar Thomson, suggested that the area be renamed "Atlantica-Pacifica", which was quickly shortened to "Atlanta".[15] The residents approved, and the town was incorporated as "Atlanta" on December 29, 1847.[16]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep it do... but the "History of Atlanta" page is much better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Atlanta

In 1836 the Georgia General Assembly voted to build the Western and Atlantic Railroad to provide a trade route to the Midwest. The initial route was to run from Chattanooga to a spot called simply "Terminus", located somewhere east of the Chattahoochee River, which would eventually be linked to the Georgia Railroad from Augusta and the Macon and Western, which ran from Macon to Savannah.

Several months later in 1837, the legislature finally established the zero-mile marker for the Terminus at a point near the present-day Georgia World Congress Center, because the area was relatively flat and would better allow for turnarounds.(The zero-mile marker was later moved a short distance east, and today sits underneath Five Points, which was built on iron pilings above the railroad.) The first store, a general store, was opened at the site in 1839 by John Thrasher and a Mr. Johnson.

By 1842, the settlement at the Terminus had six buildings and 30 residents. When a two-story depot building was built, the residents asked that the settlement be named "Lumpkin", after Wilson Lumpkin, the Governor of Georgia. He asked them to name it after his daughter, instead, and Terminus became Marthasville. Just three years later, the Chief Engineer of the Georgia Railroad, (J. Edgar Thomson) suggested that it be renamed to "Atlantica-Pacifica", which was quickly shortened to "Atlanta". The residents approved—apparently unabashed by the fact that not a single train had yet visited—and the town was eventually incorporated as "Atlanta" in 1847.