Originally Posted by
gooselee
This is a fascinating discussion.
As a student of Georgia History (the version mandated to be taught in Georgia public schools), I was initially instilled with the belief that Atlanta was destined to grow as it did because of a combination of its location, rail terminus, and weird combination of a unified city nexus surrounded by disorganized/easily swayed suburbs. Birmingham on the other hand was further from the Atlantic ports, had a "lesser" inline rail hub primarily to serve mines and steel industry in the area, and had a city nexus surrounded by suburbs that were actually quite organized and in opposition to growth.
It certainly follows from a more wizened mind that local politics of the time had more to do with the different paths than just geography and proximity to the coast, of course. But I'd also add that in this respect Atlanta had the added benefit of the city also being the seat of the state government. Where local progressives in Birmingham had to battle on values with a state government 2 hours away; the state and local lawmakers in Atlanta were literally walking the same streets every day.
Agreed, enjoyed the discussion! Just to be clear, I do think it is a multivariate issue for sure.
A couple quick points to add: not only were the Birmingham suburbs well-organized but they also benefit from the topography. While Atlanta is known as sprawl city for a reason with zero geographic obstacles, the hills/valleys of Birmingham make development at least more expensive, if not physically impossible in places. As for the ports, perhaps, although Savannah has really only come on strong in the last decade or so, as it was previously dominated by Charleston (granted SC is a neighbor at least).
In the end though, I still give the nod to the progressive leadership of ATL (perhaps even going as far back as Henry Grady and his New South vision) who knew, to paraphrase Coolidge, that the business of Atlanta is business.