Atlanta: A Visit of a Lifetime

GAK points out that Atlanta has ranked among National Geographic’s global list of 50 “Places of a Lifetime”.  In other words, it’s their 50 cities to visit before you die.

How can Atlanta compete with the likes of Vienna, Chicago and Paris?

NatGeo actually does a pretty good job of hitting the high points: trees, architecture, neighborhoods, food, shopping, arts.  (Emory prof does an even better job in a related Atlanta essay.) The big tourist spots like World of Coke, the aquarium and Turner Field are also mentioned in passing, but isn’t it interesting how most these “must visit” attributes really aren’t things you can buy tickets to, but must experience collectively?


9 thoughts on “Atlanta: A Visit of a Lifetime”

  1. I moved to Decatur/Atlanta in 2006 and am still charmed by this great and beautiful city. I’m glad National Geographic appreciates it the same way I do…

  2. Okay, Dallas is on the list…something is off there.

    mmmmm….would I rather visit Dallas, or Charleston in the last week of my life? There is really not much that Dallas has that Charleston doesnt (same with Atlanta really). Both have malls.

    I love the inner city of Atlanta and this area for its history and interest, but I’m not sure the city has to offer what Chicago, or Boston, or Philly etc does. There are quaint neighborhoods in Greenville not that different than Vi Highlands. Why isnt Greenville on the list?

    Atlanta is nice…just not sold, by this little article, that Atlanta is “a visit of a lifetime”.

  3. Check out the attribution and the quote from the AJC. Winnona Park Stud believes DM’s entreaties haven’t fallen on deaf ears:

    “I noticed this list posted at Decatur Metro, along with the astute observation that Atlanta’s “‘must visit’ attributes really aren’t things you can buy tickets to, but must experience collectively.” So true.”

    1. Absolutely Stud. I saw Jamie’s post yesterday and very much appreciated the kind words and the quote. In addition to knowing that Jamie is more up on the etiquette of new media than most others at the AJC, the trend seems to be that they’ve determined that their blogs will follow blog “rules” while the newspaper follows the old newspaper “rules.” (Unless the blogger is a former journalist. Then they’ll make exceptions for the paper.)

      They continue to pretend like newspapers and blogs are different entities, when both are just different formats of communication. “Journalism” can happen and appear anywhere, so there shouldn’t be rules of newspaper and rules of blogs, there should just be rules of journalism.

      And while I understand that the formality of newspaper writing makes it difficult to put “Hey I got this tip off a blog! Check it out! in parentheses in your story, the AJC has been particularly dismissive of bloggers over the years. So, bloggers and other newspapers all over Atlanta are particularly offended when they see yet another occasion where the AJC has copped a story from another news source and doesn’t utter the words “first reported by”. That omission gives the impression that the AJC has its finger on the pulse, when in fact it just has a RSS reader like everybody else.

      1. Ah. So the AJC can slash salaried beat reporters from their ranks, and instead rely on folks like you, their unpaid and uncredited reporters, to unearth stories. Clever for now, but what will happen when readers migrate to the source – the bloggers and other on-line journalists – in lieu of the AJC?

Comments are closed.