is the Atlanta Underground really underground
i'm doing an essay for class and came up with this bogus, but valid argument. i need to know the opinions of others on this issue: can the Atl Underground REALLY be considered underground, even though like half of it is above the surface? as a side note u should know that i go to school in Atl, but have yet to visit the Underground.
some bkgrnd info: in the 1800s, Atl was a railroad city;and the most popular and revolutionary of its kind. During the Civil War, yankees from up north came and took over the town and it was practically destroyed in the fight to get it back (among other reasons not important to this argument). The town was declared a historical site and then after a while the city people built on top of it cuz i guess they got sick of it or somethin, but then later on they reopened it as a mall-like-swingin club-type place and then they got sick of that to so it closed. then in like 1989, it re-reopened as a mall with upper(above ground) and lower (below land-level) levels and thats pretty much how it is today, but other than keeping the name for traditional reasons, should the name be considered a literal description of the venue as a whole?
yes, its in the name
Side Score: 0
|
 |
no, only part of it is
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
2
points
1
point
I would say no, but only if the "Atlanta Underground" was the official name of the system. If it is only the colloquial name of the transit system, then it doesn't really matter, as the true name of the system is something different. If the "Atlanta Underground" is the formal name of the system, I would recommend something more general be used instead for the name, something like the "Atlanta Rail Transit System." Side: no, only part of it is
|
