Midwest vs. the South: Round II [Archive]

The Urban Politician

November 28th, 2004, 02:19 AM

I think you mean these pics of Galvaston. I am impressed, Texas Boi, they are very nice. And I do see what you're saying. Although I think it is far from Chicago in sheer size (the enormous geographic area over which urbanism dominates in Chicago is unparalleled), but I have to admit, I had no idea Galvaston had these kinds of districts :)

http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p2.jpg

http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p1.jpg

Saenger Fest Park in the Shopping District
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p3.jpg

http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p4.jpg

Brothers Petronella, Christmas on the Strand and other retailers
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p5.jpg

Downtown
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p6.jpg

Notice the red London telephone boxes. Some of these are in other neighborhoods in Houston.
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p7.jpg

Chess on the Strand
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p8.jpg

Old Galveston Square
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p9.jpg

Morgan's on the Strand
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p10.jpg

http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p11.jpg

Luigi's Ristorante Italiano
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p12.jpg

Fullen's Waterwall
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p13.jpg

Harbor Huse and Landry's on Pier 21
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p14.jpg

Willie G's Seafood and Steakhouse on Pier 21
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p15.jpg

Ship Elisa in the Background
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p16.jpg

http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p17.jpg

http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p18.jpg

The Mardi Gras Arches
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p19.jpg

Pier 21
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p20.jpg

Oiling Museum
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p21.jpg

The Peanut Butter Warehouse
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p22.jpg

Museum on the Strand
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p23.jpg

Post Office Street
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p24.jpg

Post Office Street
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p25.jpg

Post Office Street
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p26.jpg

Galveston Island Trolley
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p27.jpg[/

TexasBoi

November 28th, 2004, 02:22 AM

it more reminds me of New Orleans than any other city that i can think of.

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 02:27 AM

^^^ Or Charleston or Savannah

M. Brown

November 28th, 2004, 02:41 AM

Midwest. I love it. The south is good too though.

pwright1

November 28th, 2004, 03:33 AM

Detroit is the birthplace of techno and other forms of electronic music. Though this fact is well-known throughout Europe (Detroit is Music Mecca for Europeans), people in the U.S. seem to forget about Detroit's classic musical heritage. Detroit is also one of the originators of the punk movement in the late 60's. A lot of the stuff coming out of NYC in the 70's was inspired by Detroit's early punk originators. (MC5, Iggy Pop, etc.) Even today Detroit's music scene is making waves around the world. Eminem, The Electric Six, The White Stripes, The Von Bondies, Kid Rock, etc.
Would being the birthplace of techno and electronic music make me want to move there? I don't think so. Urban decay would certainly keep me away though.

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 03:34 AM

^^ the south would have a city that would resemble an old midwestern city like that if it wasnt for a fuckin hurricane. Galveston would be the 4th largest city if it wasnt for that 1900 hurricane. Go to that thread in the Southeast forum Urban and you could see what im talking about.

I think it would be larger than the fourth largest city. Galveston already had a boom going on, unlike Houston at the time, and was growing rapidly. The hurricane at the turn of the century killed over 6,000 people and destroyed everything Galveston was known for. Galveston received the name, Wall Street of the south, before the hurricane hit, and that name would be even greater today. There wouldn't be a Houston if Galveston would not have been hit. Houston has never stopped growing tremendously, so think about where Galveston would be today.

Galveston before the hurricane hit.
http://www.islandofgalveston.com/FountainsStatuesEtc/077%201900%20Tremont%20Market.jpg

The Urban Politician

November 28th, 2004, 03:39 AM

Would being the birthplace of techno and electronic music make me want to move there? I don't think so. Urban decay would certainly keep me away though.

^no, but my point is that anyplace that is open enough to harbor such cosmopolitan forms of music is likely to be a more interesting and cool place to live. Detroit's suburbs are awesome! TONS of diversity. Trust me

But honestly, if that doesn't matter to you, that's different. IMO, Savanna is only going to appeal to older, married, caucasian crowds. Just doesn't work for people like me.. :)

nostyle

November 28th, 2004, 03:43 AM

We're going to do this whole thread again? This is just silly. This is the last you'll be hearing from me in this thread. I hope you all enjoy your silly little argument.

hauntedheadnc

November 28th, 2004, 03:45 AM

The South is full of urban "what-if"s. What if Galveston hadn't been flattened by a hurricane in 1900? What if the Stock Market Crash had held off for a year or two, and let Asheville reach the crest of its development? In the '20's, Asheville and Hendersonville both were throwing up tall buildings left and right, and if the Depression had waited just a year or two to hit, I know of at least two skyscrapers, one in Hendersonville and one in Asheville, that would be standing tall today.

What if a lot of things... What if Atlanta, Richmond, and Columbia hadn't been burned to the ground during the Civil War? What if Charleston hadn't been leveled by an earthquake in 1874? What if Miami hadn't been hit by a hurricane in 1928?

So many what-if's... But for one catastrophe here or there, the South might very well have developed a glittering metropolis before the age of the automobile. That, and lots of other cities would be considerably more developed even if they never turned into the New York of Dixie. Asheville-Hendersonville, for example. If given just a little more time, Asheville would have had a skyline on par with today's Winston-Salem. It was riding a wave of glamour, glitz, and development, but the stock market hit bottom before the wave could reach its peak. We crashed and languished for decades, and just think of what could have been...

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 03:45 AM

We're going to do this whole thread again? This is just silly. This is the last you'll be hearing from me in this thread. I hope you all enjoy your silly little argument.

So far it is not silly. "Knock on wood"

The Urban Politician

November 28th, 2004, 03:52 AM

I think it would be larger than the fourth largest city. Galveston already had a boom going on, unlike Houston at the time, and was growing rapidly. The hurricane at the turn of the century killed over 6,000 people and destroyed everything Galveston was known for. Galveston received the name, Wall Street of the south, before the hurricane hit, and that name would be even greater today. There wouldn't be a Houston if Galveston would not have been hit. Houston has never stopped growing tremendously, so think about where Galveston would be today.

^I don't think it's quite as simple as 1 catastrophe. I just don't think that, 100 years ago, the south's economy was capable of creating great cities. The north was industrial and a production economy, while the south was still largely an agricultural one. For example, think about the Great Fire of Chicago in 1871--levelled tens of thousands of buildings. But the city rose again, mostly because of the nature of its economy. At that time, Galveston may not have been poised for such a recovery.

hauntedheadnc

November 28th, 2004, 03:54 AM

You know, here's something interesting. Some people are just better suited to one area of the country over another, and there's nothing wrong with that. Some people are better adapted to the Midwest and others to the South, and neither is better than the other. They've both got their strengths and weaknesses. Just because you may like one over another doesn't mean that what you like is better than the other.

I mention this because one person has posted a series of pictures of Chicago portrayed as urban paradise. However, my boyfriend lives in Chicago, was born and bred there, and hates it with a passion. He's lived all over the city, from Boystown to a ratty Cuban neighborhood to his newest digs just a block from the lake in the new gayborhood where all the gays and lesbians are fleeing now that Boystown is so overpriced. He's counting the hours til he can leave and move here to Asheville with me. Does that make the South better than the Midwest? No. Does that mean he's misguided? No. It just means he might be better suited to life here in a funky small city in the mountains of Western North Carolina. And it also means that I was born here in the place I'm best suited and am thus lucky beyond compare.

I remember what happened with the last thread like this. Please let's not let this thread degenerate like that one!

pwright1

November 28th, 2004, 03:57 AM

^no, but my point is that anyplace that is open enough to harbor such cosmopolitan forms of music is likely to be a more interesting and cool place to live. Detroit's suburbs are awesome! TONS of diversity. Trust me

But honestly, if that doesn't matter to you, that's different. IMO, Savanna is only going to appeal to older, married, caucasian crowds. Just doesn't work for people like me.. :)

Big city life for me to. I like Houston, Miami, Dallas, New Orleans or Charlotte. But it sure is nice to be near Hilton Head, Galveston, Nags Head, Savannah, Charleston or any of the beach towns.

Fiddlerontheruf

November 28th, 2004, 03:57 AM

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/socioecon/med_fam_income.gif

the best thing I could say in the South's defense in this picture is that at least the rural areas are pretty even. Notice Atlanta, too.

Jasonhouse

November 28th, 2004, 03:57 AM

Hmm... The Midwest was romping the South in the old thread, so a new one was created.;)

It was either create a new one, or Jan was going to flat out delete the origional... Look around all of SSC, and you will soon realize that ALL threads that had more than 500 posts have gone bye-bye.

hudkina

November 28th, 2004, 04:04 AM

I was kidding...

Jasonhouse

November 28th, 2004, 04:05 AM

Note to Urban Politician and all forumers

I edited your reply to this thread, because you posted so many pics with such low compression that your one reply alone was nearly 15MB... This is just way too much for the server to bear when the thread is viewed dozens or hundreds of times a day, and hundreds of such posts are made all over SSC.

For comparison's sake, please note that while Texasboy's post has 27 pics in it, his smaller size and higher compression results in a post that is less than 1.5MB.

Everyone must show some restraint, or we are going to soon have some SERIOUS budgetary issues!

Thank you

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 04:06 AM

^I don't think it's quite as simple as 1 catastrophe. I just don't think that, 100 years ago, the south's economy was capable of creating great cities. The north was industrial and a production economy, while the south was still largely an agricultural one. For example, think about the Great Fire of Chicago in 1871--levelled tens of thousands of buildings. But the city rose again, mostly because of the nature of its economy. At that time, Galveston may not have been poised for such a recovery.

Galveston's economy was not based on agriculture like other southern cities. Galveston's harbor became an active port with ships around the world imprting their goods through the city. For a city of its size in the late 19th century, the port created an economy for Galveston that made it a booming town at the time. We are talking a port that is so great, that it is still used today as a big part of Houston's economy. The port is still the largest port in the nation based on international tonnage, and the second in the nation for total tonnage. In all, it is the sixth largest in the world.

hauntedheadnc

November 28th, 2004, 04:08 AM

I dunno about that map of incomes... For one, it's five years old, and for another, the cost of living in the South tends to be much less than elsewhere in the country, so even smaller incomes equal higher living standards than you'd think. Of course we're all familiar with the ratty bungalow in San Francisco that costs $650,000 versus the McMansion in Houston that costs $130,000.

Tourist areas though, will have a wide disparity because wages stay low even as property costs skyrocket. If housing costs were proportionate to income, places like Asheville would be affordable. However, when you have so many people from other places moving in waving fistfuls of money, you end up with the people who live here making $6.25/hour but having to fend for themselves in a housing market where the average house starts at $165,000. That's when things are as bad as they look.

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 04:19 AM

On the maps, the two areas pretty much look the same, even when you don't factor things in like cost of living. All the major cities seem like their high income areas are in the suburbs anyway, which is no surprise.

M. Brown

November 28th, 2004, 04:26 AM

My goodness. This thread grows fast. I cant keep up with it.

KCN

November 28th, 2004, 04:43 AM

From what I understand, Galveston lost its status not because of the hurricane, but because of the discovery of oil near Houston, and thus they stole the show.

Despite the hurricane, the city of Galveston rebuilt. They even pumped mega bucks in elevating the entire city 10 feet just a few years later.

The anti-cheesehead

November 28th, 2004, 04:48 AM

So far it is not silly. "Knock on wood"

Knocking on wood doesn't work.

Suthunas:

http://img113.exs.cx/img113/8766/hayseed_original.jpg

http://img124.exs.cx/img124/2334/deliverance_2_17.jpg

http://img124.exs.cx/img124/5598/mullet_classic.jpg

And a new one I found on the midwest vs. east coast thread. Apparantley, this guy was in Branson MO, which is more southern than midwestern, so you guys can claim him:

http://img124.exs.cx/img124/2252/you_might_be_a_redneck.jpg

I vote Midwest.

OK, now back to being serious.

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 04:50 AM

From what I understand, Galveston lost its status not because of the hurricane, but because of the discovery of oil near Houston, and thus they stole the show.

??? Galveston is on the coast of the Houston area, which means it is just as close to oil than Houston is. The drilling for oil is mostly in the Gulf of Mexico. The only reason why Houston is so poulated now is because of the oil boom, and they moved closer inland (Houston) away from the coast so they wouldn't experience another tragedy similar to what happened in Galveston years before.

KCN

November 28th, 2004, 05:03 AM

??? Galveston is on the coast of the Houston area, which means it is just as close to oil than Houston is. The drilling for oil is mostly in the Gulf of Mexico. The only reason why Houston is so poulated now is because of the oil boom, and they moved closer inland (Houston) away from the coast so they wouldn't experience another tragedy similar to what happened in Galveston years before.

Galveston and Houston are 50 miles apart, which was pretty significant in the days when people mostly got around by train. The oil was discovered much closer to Houston than Galveston, and it took off from there.

Houston and Galveston were intense rivals at the turn of the 20th centuty, and many many people were reluctant to leave Galveston after that hurricane, especially to Houston. Read "Isaac's Storm"...it explains a bit how the hurricane was not the reason for Galveston's loss of status as many people believe.

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 05:11 AM

Galveston and Houston are 50 miles apart, which was pretty significant in the days when people mostly got around by train. The oil was discovered much closer to Houston than Galveston, and it took off from there.

Houston and Galveston were intense rivals at the turn of the 20th centuty, and many many people were reluctant to leave Galveston after that hurricane, especially to Houston. Read "Isaac's Storm"...it explains a bit how the hurricane was not the reason for Galveston's loss of status as many people believe.

Well these days to tell you the truth the only oil rigs I see are in and around Galveston Bay and Texas City. I hate to drown this thread with information on Galveston, so I'm going to stop right here.

The Urban Politician

November 28th, 2004, 05:12 AM

I dunno about that map of incomes... For one, it's five years old, and for another, the cost of living in the South tends to be much less than elsewhere in the country, so even smaller incomes equal higher living standards than you'd think. Of course we're all familiar with the ratty bungalow in San Francisco that costs $650,000 versus the McMansion in Houston that costs $130,000.

Has it occurred to you that cost of living doesn't occur in a vacuum? In other words, people don't pay $500,000 to live in SF or other big cities for no reason. They do it because of the cosmopolitism, culture, and other amenities that these cities offer. Most southern cities completely lack these aspects, or are at least far behind. It shows--just look at the election results

The Urban Politician

November 28th, 2004, 05:14 AM

http://img113.exs.cx/img113/8766/hayseed_original.jpg

Hey, that's my cousin! He was taken away to Mississippi at birth. Where'd you find him?

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 05:18 AM

Has it occurred to you that cost of living doesn't occur in a vacuum? In other words, people don't pay $500,000 to live in SF or other big cities for no reason. They do it because of the cosmopolitism, culture, and other amenities that these cities offer.

Then what is San Jose's excuse?

The Urban Politician

November 28th, 2004, 05:18 AM

^high-paying jobs.
And, it's still part of the Bay Area

The anti-cheesehead

November 28th, 2004, 05:25 AM

http://img113.exs.cx/img113/8766/hayseed_original.jpg

Hey, that's my cousin! He was taken away to Mississippi at birth. Where'd you find him?

Well, after a brief stint as a city planner of Rooster's Ass, Mississippi, he left to take the job of mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina. He still has that same red pickup. According to Emporis anyway.

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 05:37 AM

^high-paying jobs.
And, it's still part of the Bay Area

That is not the reason. I will tell you the truth, that I do not know the real reasons, but it is obvious that the reasons you stated are incorrect. Last time I checked, San Jose's property values were higher than SF, or any city in the country.

I think it has to do more with land use to be honest. I say that because look at cities in Alaska like Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks. Real estate is sky high in those areas also. Why? It is not beause of what the cities offer, but Alaska is a mineral rich area, and the opportunity to find these minerals would be killed if real estate were to be developed on top of the land. So what do they do, raise property values so there would not be such a high demand for people to own land. I may be wrong, but it makes perfect sense to me.

The Urban Politician

November 28th, 2004, 05:44 AM

^perhaps that applies to Alaska, where those high property values were artificially put in place. But in most places, property values follow the free market. Nowadays, increased values are based on location, location, location. And in high demand right now are amenities and jobs. In fact, current trends suggest that people look for cities and amenities first, then jobs. This is different from 20 or so years ago, when people went places primarily to find work, regardless of where..

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 06:03 AM

^perhaps that applies to Alaska, where those high property values were artificially put in place.

I wouldn't call it artificially put in place. It is just areas or cities have their different reasons. To me, it sounds like you are basing your facts on the same similar reason why it is easier to find affordable living in the suburbs rather than the inner city.

Answer me this. Chicago and Philadelphia are more affordable than some other cities like NYC, Boston, SF, DC, and LA, but based on the reasons that you posted, do they really fit in the category of not having as much amenities? All I am saying is, there are different reasons why property values may be too high or too low.

The Urban Politician

November 28th, 2004, 06:16 AM

^ To be honest, it has always been a mystery to me why Chicago is relatively cheaper than its coastal counterparts.
I'll be the first to admit I'm not an economist, and that surely other complicated factors play into real estate. My only guess would be that despite it being a big city, being in the relatively secluded midwest has an impact.

But I'll leave that question for someone more qualified to answer

Justadude

November 28th, 2004, 06:19 AM

Oh please, let's not act like rural Midwesterners are anything you wouldn't find in the worst parts of Mississippi.

qwerty1324

November 28th, 2004, 06:34 AM

Oh please, let's not act like rural Midwesterners are anything you wouldn't find in the worst parts of Mississippi.
Yeah but the percentages of people that you are describing are way different, the midwest obviously has way fewer and a much lower percentage. Where is that education map?

Justadude

November 28th, 2004, 06:37 AM

I think it's fairly obvious that the Midwest has the single best city, Chicago. But in terms of collection, it's not all that impressive of a region.

Minneapolis is nice, and Milwaukee is underrated. Beyond that, what does the Midwest have?

- Detroit... nice in some areas, but let's be realistic about we associate with D Detroit.
- Indianapolis... probably the blandest big city in the country. A few nice buildings, a great quarterback and the best boxers in the NBA. That's about it.
- St. Louis is a decent city, but I'm not sure whether it should count on either side of this thread. It's geographically Midwestern but culturally the things that make it interesting came from the South (blues, jazz). If you want to go ahead and count it as Midwestern, you have to account for its serious urban decay.
- Cleveland is generally looked at as the biggest dump in America, like Detroit without the culture.
- Cincinnatti is a nice town, but dealing with the same problems as the other cities listed above.
- After that, what is there? Columbus? Wichita? Iowa City? Not places anyone would spend money to visit.

Looking southward, you don't have anything to compare to Chicago. But the ones that compare to the other midwestern cities more than hold their own.

- Larger cities like Atlanta, Miami, Houston, and Dallas are at the forefront of the nation's economic development. Miami is one of the most culturally diverse cities in the US.
- Medium-sized cities include cultural hotspots like New Orleans, Memphis and Nashville; as well as growing urban centers like Charlotte, Orlando, NoVA, Richmond and Norfolk.
- Smaller cities are some of the most attractive in the nation, including Charleston, Savannah, Asheville, Raleigh, St. Augustine, and others.

I wouldn't say this is a "romp" for the midwest at all. If you want to say Chicago vs. the South, fine. Chicago wins. But if we're talking about comparing the entire region head-to-head, I think the South has a much greater range of urbanity and makes a much more compelling place to explore.

Justadude

November 28th, 2004, 06:38 AM

Yeah but the percentages of people that you are describing are way different, the midwest obviously has way fewer and a much lower percentage. Where is that education map?

That's because the Midwest includes huge areas that are virtually unpopulated. If you took a hick out of Alabama and a hick out of Ohio and put them side by side, nobody would tell the difference.

Toggie

November 28th, 2004, 06:57 AM

the rural densities of these two regions are NOT different
http://www.illinoisatlas.com/us/demographic/jpg/us_county_density.jpg
midwest hicks are just more educated than southern hicks.

qwerty1324

November 28th, 2004, 07:02 AM

^Great reply.

Justadude

November 28th, 2004, 07:05 AM

midwest hicks are just more educated than southern hicks.

More "educated" in the sense of wielding a piece of paper to certify that they passed 12th-grade woodshop, but that doesn't make a person a bit smarter than the next guy. C'mon, if you really think a yokel from rural Michigan is somehow elite in comparison to a yokel from rural Georgia, you're basically admitting you haven't had experience with both groups of people.

In any case, this is entirely off-topic. We're talking about cities, and the representation of Southerners as hillbillys (while offensive at the same level as calling a black man "Sambo") has nothing to do with city-dwellers.

The Urban Politician

November 28th, 2004, 04:29 PM

- Larger cities like Atlanta, Miami, Houston, and Dallas are at the forefront of the nation's economic development. Miami is one of the most culturally diverse cities in the US.
.

^I have a hard time associating Miami with the "south". Sure, it is geographically southern, but from many of the Miamians I have met and with what I know as a whole, Miami has nothing in common with the rest of the southern region and is really more of a coastal city that has more in common with California, etc than with Alabama. How else do I know that--just look, not a single Florida/Miami forumer has bothered to post in this thread.

In other words, I really don't think Miami should be considered part of the "south" when included in these discussions, because it is NOT

That is different from Chicago which, although a global city, still takes roots in the midwest and is still well-grounded it the region.

teshadoh

November 28th, 2004, 04:34 PM

This kind of quality thread is what makes SkyscraperCity such a great source for open minded conversations on urbanity & regional discussions. Great job everyone - Silverlake couldn't do a better job.

Justadude

November 28th, 2004, 09:01 PM

^I have a hard time associating Miami with the "south". .... In other words, I really don't think Miami should be considered part of the "south" when included in these discussions, because it is NOT

In other words, this thread is Midwest vs. South-except-those-cities-in-the-South-we-choose-to-ignore. Well crap, looks like defending the South just got a hell of a lot harder.

While you're at it, chuck out New Orleans; it has no cultural connection to Alabamans either. Oh, and forget northern Virginia, they're closer to Baltimore and Washington culture. And let's not forget the entire state of Texas, since it has Latino culture and therefore isn't culturally associated with the South.

This kind of move makes the thread pointless. If you want to say Midwest vs. South then you have to look at the ENTIRE region, not just the cities you decide to select subjectively. It so happens that the South is a region of great cultural diversity, despite the persistent stereotypes that claim otherwise. There's a huge number of regional accents, cuisines, ethnicities and other cultural touchstones in the South. It's not fair at all to the region if you only decide to take a single group and single it out, declaring it "Southern" while everything else is somehow neutral.

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 09:06 PM

That is what makes the south slightly better in my opinion. The character of the cities can be completely different from each other, unlike other regions.

james2390

November 28th, 2004, 09:49 PM

MCC

November 28th, 2004, 10:27 PM

This is the mayor of Charlotte? I knew that picture looked familiar but I couldn't remember where I had seen it.

http://img113.exs.cx/img113/8766/hayseed_original.jpg

The anti-cheesehead

November 28th, 2004, 10:53 PM

I think the South is so much more prettier than the Midwest. The climate varies alot more. The Midwest doesn't offer ocean, mountains, or tropical like settings. The weather is a hell of alot better. The skylines are even better, with Chicago as an exception. Florida alone makes me want to vote for the South.

Take Chicago out of the midwest and the south wins hands down. Chicago is great, but there is no way I could take a city over a region of about 10 states.

The south also is alot more active and livlier feeling than the midwest. I would rather watch construction and cranes in the South than watch urban decay in the Midwest.

But...that is all just my opinion.

Boring midwestern landscape:

http://img102.exs.cx/img102/754/Superior20View.jpg

http://img91.exs.cx/img91/6339/Rivers_02.jpg

http://img91.exs.cx/img91/3311/79252448hinbdO_ph.jpg

http://img91.exs.cx/img91/6408/79393211ElWpgt_ph.jpg

http://img91.exs.cx/img91/5219/81352310OcnUsa_ph.jpg

Urban decay:

http://img91.exs.cx/img91/3373/8802.jpg

http://img91.exs.cx/img91/4779/8803.jpg

http://img91.exs.cx/img91/3089/att1.jpg

Old and shitty:

http://img91.exs.cx/img91/5001/shiny.jpg

http://img91.exs.cx/img91/4732/shiny2.jpg

Anything but Chicago's skyline sucks:

http://img91.exs.cx/img91/9566/Over62and55_900.jpg

This is just ONE state. Lets get some Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, etc. pics going.

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 11:22 PM

Maybe you missed the line where James said that this is all his opinion.

MCC

November 28th, 2004, 11:27 PM

No, I think he was aware that what James said was his opinion.

hauntedheadnc

November 28th, 2004, 11:49 PM

"Has it occurred to you that cost of living doesn't occur in a vacuum? In other words, people don't pay $500,000 to live in SF or other big cities for no reason. They do it because of the cosmopolitism, culture, and other amenities that these cities offer. Most southern cities completely lack these aspects, or are at least far behind. It shows--just look at the election results"

Mm-hm. Silly me. Here I was thinking people paid big bucks to live in certain cities because their jobs required it, and it's just a bit inconvenient to jet in from some affordable state each morning.

Now, as far as culture or its lack thereof, I would mention that conductors from the Pittsburgh Symphony, Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra, and the Kansas City Symphony are vying to be the next permanent conductor of the Asheville Symphony Orchestra, and that the arts in Asheville pump about $62 million dollars into the local economy every year, and that, per capita, Asheville has the third largest population of artisans in the nation with only New York and San Francisco ahead of it. Plus I would mention that in regards to that last statistic, there are more than 4,000 artists in Asheville, out of its population of 70,000. But, those statistics might not say as much as the following list, which I was hoping you would not force me to compile, as it entails much typing, but there you go.

Presenting, the arts in the Asheville-Hendersonville, NC area

Museums of the Asheville-Hendersonville area

Asheville Art Museum (specializing in modern art, features a work by Zelda Fitzgerald)
Colburn Earth Sciences Museum (featuring gems, minerals, and fossils)
The Health Adventure (children's science museum)
YMI Cultural Center (African-American art and history museum)
Asheville Urban Trail (urban sculpture garden)
Estes-Winn Antique Car Museum (prize exhibit: 1929 LaSalle fire engine)
Smith-McDowell House Museum (presenting Southern life through the 19th Century)
Southern Appalachian Radio Museum (antique radio technologies and broadcasts)
Swannanoa Valley Museum (outlining the valley's history from the Stone Age to the present)
Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site (aka Connemara, where Sandburg lived out the final decades of his life and where visitors may now pet the descendants of Mrs. Sandburg's prize-winning goats)
Zebulon B. Vance State Historic Site (birthplace of NC's Civil War governor)
Biltmore Estate (featuring antiques from around the world, works by Sargent, Whistler, Renoir, Monet, 15th-16th Century tapestries, a painted ceiling taken from a Venetian palace, and much, much, much, much more)
Henderson County Arts Center (rotating exhibits, featured Picasso ceramics last year)
WNC Air Museum (vintage aircraft)
Biltmore Village Museum (details the development of Biltmore Estate and its model village)
North Carolina Homespun Museum (details the history of Biltmore Industries, and clothmaking in WNC)
Riverside Cemetery (resting place of Thomas Wolfe, O. Henry, and other luminaries)
Thomas Wolfe Memorial (the Old Kentucky Home boarding house, fictionalized as Dixieland in Look Homeward, Angel)
Mineral and Lapidary Museum of Henderson County (rocks a'plenty)
Folk Art Center (high-quality, handcrafted furniture, clothing, glass, quilts, jewelry, decorative objects, etc)
Black Mountain College Museum and Arts Center (detailing a legacy that included professors such as Buckminster Fuller)
NC Arboretum (originally proposed by Frederick Law Olmsted, who designed the Biltmore Gardens as well as New York's Central Park)
Asheville Botanical Gardens
WNC Nature Center (includes a predator habitat featuring native Big Cats)

Writers who have called the area home

Gail Godwin
Charles Frazier
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Wilma Dykeman
Carl Sandburg
O. Henry (William S. Porter)
Robert Morgan
John Ehle
Fred Chappell

Performing arts in the area

Asheville Bravo Concerts
Asheville Community Theatre
Asheville Lyric Opera
Dance Theatre Art and the "BeBe" Theatre (contemporary dance)
Fine Arts Theatre
Flat Rock Playhouse
Asheville Chamber Music Series
Asheville Symphony Orchestra
Asheville Choral Society
Gay Men's Chorus at the Cathedral of All Souls
Folkmoot USA (international dance festival)
Asheville Civic Ballet
Terpsicorps (professional ballet)
Diana Wortham Theatre
Highland Repertory Theatre
Asheville Contemporary Dance Theatre
Jericho Productions
Jhamuna Kalid (Russan songwriter and folk singer now living in Asheville)
North Carolina Stage Company
Swannanoa Chamber Music Festival
Plaeides Productions
Glenis Redmond Performance Poet
Old Farmer's Ball (advocates community through dance)
PROtainment
Asheville Percussive Dance Festival
Flat Rock Music Festival
Brevard Music Festival
Lake Eden Arts Festival
Hendersonville Symphony Orchestra
Hendersonville Little Theatre
Hendersonville Community Band
Skyland Arts Cinema
Asheville Film Festival
American Guild of Organists
Appalachian Craft and Folk Festival
Asheville Community Concert Association
Asheville Chamber Music Series
Land of the Sky Chorus
NC Mountain Acoustic Music Association
Mountain Madrigals and Pastime
PebbleDash String Quartet
Shindig on the Green (bluegrass festival)
Song O'Sky Chorus
Swannanoa Gathering
UNCA Community Chorus
WNC Jazz Society
Womansong
WNCW-FM Public Radio
Contra Dance
Ballet Warraba
English Country Dance
Ashgrove Garland Dancers
Asheville Clogging Company
Green Grass Cloggers
The JD Project
Silent Partners
Mountain Thunder Cloggers
The ART Project
Bittersweet Productions
Black Swan Productions
Blue Plate Special
Blue Shift Theatre Ensemble
Bright Star Children's Theatre
Broadway Arts Repertory Theatre
Carolina Artisans Thespian Society
Consider the Following
Lucky Break
Mockingbird Theatre Productions
Montford Park Players
Odyssey Theatre
Painless Productions
Pandavas Productions
Peace Troupe
Pisgah Players
North Carolina Stage Company
Playback Theatre
Smoky Mountain Repertory Theatre
Southern Appalachian Repertory Theatre
Theatre UNCA
Theatre of a Thousand Juliets
Stand-Up Productions
Asheville Film Board
Bella Visione Film Society
WNC Film Commission

Now, I would list art galleries, but there are over a hundred, and frankly, I'm sick of typing. However, I'm certain I've proved your point that the South is indeed a cultural wasteland by posting a list of the arts groups in this one, single metro.

Would you like an alphabetized list?

M. Brown

November 28th, 2004, 11:49 PM

The skylines are even better, with Chicago as an exception.
So St. Louis, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Minneapolis, St Paul, and Detroit have bad skylines?

hauntedheadnc

November 28th, 2004, 11:52 PM

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Asheville was voted oneof the Top 10 Literary Destinations and one of the Top 25 Arts Destinations. Silly me!

texasboy

November 28th, 2004, 11:56 PM

So St. Louis, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Minneapolis, St Paul, and Detroit have bad skylines?

No. The skylines in the south might be more appealing than those in the midwest. No that it really matters, because skylines do not make a city.

hauntedheadnc

November 28th, 2004, 11:56 PM

Congrats, Anti-Cheesehead. You haven't posted anything that can't be found in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, or Alabama, except that in addition to lakes in dramatic settings, they've also got the ocean.

Granted, you won't find the Minneapolis skyline in any of these states, but you will find glittering glass towers aplenty.

texasboy

November 29th, 2004, 12:09 AM

The midwest has nice geography, and I hope it would, being a region of the most georaphically diverse countries in the world, but I do not think it should be brought up in a discussion like this considering it is going up against the south. Don't get me wrong the midwest has beautiful geography, but there are some single states that have better geography than the whole midwest. But then again, this is just my opinion.

james2390

November 29th, 2004, 12:40 AM

Holy shit, are you guys that stupid? Please read through what I typed and tell me where I said Midwestern skylines were bad. I said Southern skylines are better, with Chicago as an exception. So, does that mean that Midwestern skylines are bad? Nope, it doesn't. I am saying that Southern skylines in general are better.

And I said I thought the geography of the southern states was better. I think it is alot better, and I stand by what I said. Any place is going to have exceptions, but I think the south is more beautiful.

hudkina

November 29th, 2004, 12:42 AM

Does anyone realize that if you added the Midwest and Northeast together, but gave the southern half of Missouri (south of Kansas City/St. Louis) to the South, the combined region would still be smaller in area than the South. To compare these to regions gives the South a major handicap due to it's huge area.

Funny though, considering the Midwest still kicks the souths ass despite the huge handicap.;)

hudkina

November 29th, 2004, 12:44 AM

BTW, just because the skylines of the South are taller and more linear, doesn't mean they are better. Skylines are all a matter of taste. I prefer bricks and stones over glass and steel. Others prefer the opposite. A skyline isn't something measureable in terms of one being better than another.

skysdalimit

November 29th, 2004, 01:19 AM

Ok, fine. I guess it is safe to assume, then, that southern skylines in general are more modern. Am I right?? And the south's geography definately is better, there is really no comparison. We have the lovely Blue Ridge Mountains, south Atlantic coast, and the sands of the Gulf of Mexico. Southern land is so dynamic: from coast to mountains, from swamps to the rolling hills of the piedmont, the south has it all.

The anti-cheesehead

November 29th, 2004, 01:20 AM

Congrats, Anti-Cheesehead. You haven't posted anything that can't be found in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, or Alabama, except that in addition to lakes in dramatic settings, they've also got the ocean.

Well, actually I did post something that you won't find in the south, specifically the biggest lake in the world. Yeah, I know we don't have a nearby ocean, I had geography classes in grade school, but they never taught me that Maryland was part of the south.

I posted those pictures to show that the midwest isn't all cornfields and rotted out industrial cities.

skysdalimit

November 29th, 2004, 01:22 AM

Ok fine, the midwest has cornfields AND big lakes. I'd take the ocean anyday. :tongue3:

Wu-Gambino

November 29th, 2004, 01:26 AM

- Indianapolis... probably the blandest big city in the country. A few nice buildings, a great quarterback and the best boxers in the NBA. That's about it.
Wow, I could think of at least 10 cities blander than Indy.
A few nice buildings? More than 3/4 of the buildings downtown are pre-WWII.
Indy has the most vibrant downtown for a city its size. Not to mention a great shopping scene and neighborhoods.

The anti-cheesehead

November 29th, 2004, 01:29 AM

Ok fine, the midwest has cornfields AND big lakes. I'd take the ocean anyday. :tongue3:

AND gigantic forests. And yeah, the ocean is nice, until it brews up a hurricane and wrecks everything. I'm just a $200 plane ticket away from the ocean anyway. Florida vacations are cheap.

skysdalimit

November 29th, 2004, 01:32 AM

Lol, yes, hurricanes are bad indeed, but wasn't some huge freighter lost in Lake Superior back in the '70s in a huge storm?

And the south has gigantic forests too, lol.

The anti-cheesehead

November 29th, 2004, 01:38 AM

Lol, yes, hurricanes are bad indeed, but wasn't some huge freighter lost in Lake Superior back in the '70s in a huge storm?

Back in the 70's? Yeah. It was nothing like a hurricane though.

Forget the 70's, didn't Florida just get completely fucked back in October? You know, hurricanes lining up just to get a swing at Florida? Doesn't someplace in the south get railed almost every single year by hurricanes and subsequent tornados? IMO, people who live in those areas should either have insurance or they're screwed, they should get no federal money because they know where the live. But the beaches are nice. :)

And the south has gigantic forests too, lol.

Did I say they didn't? I was responding to your stupid ass comment:

Ok fine, the midwest has cornfields AND big lakes.

pwright1

November 29th, 2004, 01:40 AM

That's too bad being a plane ticket away. That's just it. Who would want to live that far away. No way.

james2390

November 29th, 2004, 01:41 AM

Wow biggest lake in the world or ocean...

M. Brown

November 29th, 2004, 01:42 AM

freighter lost in Lake Superior back in the '70s in a huge storm?
A frieghter lost in Lake Superior because of a Huge storm vs Hundrends of families homless or left with no electricity etc because of hurricans every year? I dont think one frieghter lost because of one storm can match that.

The anti-cheesehead

November 29th, 2004, 01:43 AM

That's too bad being a plane ticket away. That's just it. Who would want to live that far away. No way.

I'd never live in Florida just to be near the ocean. Packing up my stuff every couple years (or every couple weeks) because of hurricanes is not worth it.

If I were to move to be near the ocean, it'd be Southern California.

The anti-cheesehead

November 29th, 2004, 01:46 AM

Wow biggest lake in the world or ocean...

The ocean. But I wouldn't want to live there (gulf or atlantic coast) for reasons that I've already discussed.

M. Brown

November 29th, 2004, 01:46 AM

^ I would choose cali too.

skysdalimit

November 29th, 2004, 02:00 AM

Did I say they didn't? I was responding to your stupid ass comment:

Did I say that the Midwest didn't have forests?

And guys chill, I was kidding about the whole freighter thing, geez. :jk:

Justadude

November 29th, 2004, 02:38 AM

Wow, I could think of at least 10 cities blander than Indy.

Big cities? 10 of them? That's an impressive feat. Not that I want this to devolve into a city vs. city thread, but I'd be very interested to know which ones you have in mind.

A few nice buildings? More than 3/4 of the buildings downtown are pre-WWII.

Doesn't make the city look any better. Indy has a particularly unappealing skyline. I'm sorry if that sounds offensive, I'm really not trying to be. But have you ever heard anyone list Indy on a "Top 10 skylines" thread?

Indy has the most vibrant downtown for a city its size. Not

Whaaaaaa??????

Before you ask, yes I have been to Indianapolis. It definitely does NOT have the most vibrant downtown of a city its size. That is simply an absurd comment.

MCC

November 29th, 2004, 03:15 AM

Whaaaaaa??????

Before you ask, yes I have been to Indianapolis. It definitely does NOT have the most vibrant downtown of a city its size. That is simply an absurd comment.

What did you have in mind then, Charlotte? You seem to have a huge southern bias.

pwright1

November 29th, 2004, 03:17 AM

I guess it's a matter of choice. Since I surf, it wouldn't be much fun surfing on any of the great lakes or the Mississippi River.

texasboy

November 29th, 2004, 03:19 AM

What did you have in mind then, Charlotte? You seem to have a huge southern bias.

Maybe New Orleans, Austin, Memphis. But remember that is just my opinion. (sort of)

mjtinmemphis

November 29th, 2004, 03:39 AM

Whaaaaaa??????

Before you ask, yes I have been to Indianapolis. It definitely does NOT have the most vibrant downtown of a city its size. That is simply an absurd comment.

What city the size of Indy has the most vibrant DT area?

And is it in the South?

The anti-cheesehead

November 29th, 2004, 03:49 AM

I guess it's a matter of choice. Since I surf, it wouldn't be much fun surfing on any of the great lakes or the Mississippi River.

I don't surf, and I said that I like the ocean better than Lake Superior. If you're just going by scenery though, Lake Superior might as well be the ocean because it doesn't really look any different from an ocean. As far as swimming in the ocean is concerned, I like Florida beaches better that Southern California beaches. Florida ocean water is like being in the bath tub...or in a smaller Minnesota lake in the summer. Southern California ocean water isn't any warmer than Lake Michigan water in the summer. It's really too cold to swim in. I can't even imagine what the water off the coast of Washington is like. In the summertime at least, swimming in Minnesota lakes is better than swimming at the beach in California---the lake water is MUCH warmer, besides Lake Superior. Yeah, Florida beaches are hard to beat, but you have to put up with those darn Hurricanes. The lakes here are nice, no hurricanes, no salt, no gators or poisonous snakes (like them Florida lakes) and no sharks or stingrays or jellyfish.

Wu-Gambino

November 29th, 2004, 04:00 AM

Big cities? 10 of them? That's an impressive feat. Not that I want this to devolve into a city vs. city thread, but I'd be very interested to know which ones you have in mind.

Doesn't make the city look any better. Indy has a particularly unappealing skyline. I'm sorry if that sounds offensive, I'm really not trying to be. But have you ever heard anyone list Indy on a "Top 10 skylines" thread?

Whaaaaaa??????

Before you ask, yes I have been to Indianapolis. It definitely does NOT have the most vibrant downtown of a city its size. That is simply an absurd comment.
So which cities are more vibrant than Indy?

Walk down South Meridian Street at night, and then tell me which city is more vibrant. Do the same on Mass. Avenue or Broad Ripple and tell me which one is more vibrant.

Sure, Indy isn't in most people's top ten skyline's list, but it's skyline is still good for a city it's size.

http://tinypic.com/kry2d

http://tinypic.com/kry2u

http://tinypic.com/krzfl

http://tinypic.com/krzg6

http://tinypic.com/krzhf

http://tinypic.com/krzis

http://tinypic.com/krzp0

Besides downtown, Indy's residential architecture is pretty good.

The Urban Politician

November 29th, 2004, 04:25 AM

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Asheville was voted oneof the Top 10 Literary Destinations and one of the Top 25 Arts Destinations. Silly me!

Hmmm.... WOW! I have to move to Asheville now! What an exciting city!

Here's some news: I'm not white, I"m not married, and I will NEVER move to Asheville

Northern, urban, and cosmopolitan. Period. Defend your region of the country as much as you want, but I have lived in the south and I have seen the election results. You guys have too many bible belt hillbillies, and be pissed off at me for saying this as much as you want, but it sucks down there and you'll never understand as long as you're white

hauntedheadnc

November 29th, 2004, 04:26 AM

Hm, Anti-Cheesehead... you'd choose California? Then, does that mean we'd get to bash you for living in Earthquake Country? They seem to do more damage than hurricanes... and they're sure more insidious about it.

The anti-cheesehead

November 29th, 2004, 04:34 AM

Hm, Anti-Cheesehead... you'd choose California? Then, does that mean we'd get to bash you for living in Earthquake Country?

I'd choose San Diego. I can't remember the last time they had an earthquake.

They seem to do more damage than hurricanes... and they're sure more insidious about it.

Nope. Hurricanes happen too often to the gulf coast and se atlantic coast compared to earthquakes occuring in Southern California, and specifically, San Diego.

hauntedheadnc

November 29th, 2004, 04:36 AM

Hmmm.... WOW! I have to move to Asheville now! What an exciting city!

Here's some news: I'm not white, I"m not married, and I will NEVER move to Asheville

Northern, urban, and cosmopolitan. Period. Defend your region of the country as much as you want, but I have lived in the south and I have seen the election results. You guys have too many bible belt hillbillies, and be pissed off at me for saying this as much as you want, but it sucks down there and you'll never understand as long as you're white

Funny... I'm not married either. In fact, I'm gay, and my boyfriend is blatino.

Asheville is urban and cosmopolitan and if you don't like that fact, you can sit on it and spin. We have the largest population of practicing Wiccans in the world the most lesbians per capita in the world, and the thirteenth largest gay population per capita in the world so the next time you want to portray it as some backward hick town, think again, applecheeks. Asheville is about as far removed from the Bible Belt as San Francisco.

Or in other words. Southern. Urban. Cosmopolitan. Period. Bash my region of the country all you want, but I live in the South and I saw the election results in which more counties in Mississippi than in Minnesota went for Kerry. Asheville is not the place to find a signifigant concentraion of Bible Belt hillbillies, and be pissed off at me for saying this all you want, but you're a bigot, as is anyone else who dismisses a region or a people offhand. And, you'll never understand as long as you're a bigot.

Now, you have a blessed day. :)

texasboy

November 29th, 2004, 04:38 AM

The anti-cheesehead

November 29th, 2004, 04:39 AM

Or in other words. Southern. Urban. Cosmopolitan. Period. Bash my region of the country all you want, but I live in the South and I saw the election results in which more counties in Mississippi than in Minnesota went for Kerry.

Yet Kerry won Minnesota and Bush won Mississippi. Funny how that works. I guess how many counties went for Kerry in Mississippi doesn't really matter. :)

hauntedheadnc

November 29th, 2004, 04:42 AM

The anti-cheesehead

November 29th, 2004, 04:46 AM

Right, because one county in Minnesota happened to contain Minneapolis and another contained St. Paul. How about that?

Or, maybe, it has nothing to do with which counties voted for which candidate and everything to do with how many people voted for a particular candidate within the state and more people voted for Bush than Kerry in Mississippi?

How about that? You learn something everyday!

texasboy

November 29th, 2004, 04:52 AM

Or, maybe, it has nothing to do with which counties voted for which candidate and everything to do with how many people voted for a particular candidate within the state and more people voted for Bush than Kerry in Mississippi?

How about that? You learn something everyday!

Why does it matter anyway. You really cannot tell a democrat or Republican just by looking at them, until they talk about their views. I never knew some of my friends were democrats that I am very close with. All I am getting at is, what does it have to do with this discussion anyway?

The anti-cheesehead

November 29th, 2004, 04:58 AM

Why does it matter anyway. You really cannot tell a democrat or Republican just by looking at them, until they talk about their views. I never knew some of my friends were democrats that I am very close with. All I am getting at is, what does it have to do with this discussion anyway?

It doesn't matter. I just didn't understand why hauntedheadnc would bring up the point of more counties in Mississippi going for Kerry than in Minnesota. So what? Obviously, by making a comment like that, hauntedheadnc doesn't fully understand how an election works. What matters more? 20 or so counties in Mississippi where barely anybody lives going for Kerry or one county of 1+ million in Minnesota that goes for Kerry? Doh!

hauntedheadnc

November 29th, 2004, 05:04 AM

qwerty1324

November 29th, 2004, 05:16 AM

No one has heard of Asheville. It is a tiny town.

sleepy

November 29th, 2004, 05:16 AM

It doesn't matter. I just didn't understand why hauntedheadnc would bring up the point of more counties in Mississippi going for Kerry than in Minnesota. So what? Obviously, by making a comment like that, hauntedheadnc doesn't fully understand how an election works. What matters more? 20 or so counties in Mississippi where barely anybody lives going for Kerry or one county of 1+ million in Minnesota that goes for Kerry? Doh!

Well, most stereotypes of regions are just that, stereotypes.

I grew up in Memphis--2 miles from Mississippi, and lived my entire adult life in New Orleans--20 miles from Mississippi.

I now live in southern Minnesota. The Democratic and Republican parties are alive and well in both states. The Bush-Kerry split may have been 40-60 in some Minnesota and some Mississippi counties, and it may have been 60-40 in other Minnesota and Mississippi counties.

Both Mississippi and Minnesota have an equal split between democrats and republicans among their Congressional delegations.

Most of Minnesota's neighbors to the west, the Plains states, are far more conservative than Mississippi in terms of their voting history.

Toggie

November 29th, 2004, 05:20 AM

Right, because one county in Minnesota happened to contain Minneapolis and another contained St. Paul. How about that? Even so, more counties in Mississippi went for Kerry. Golly... maybe that means not everybody in the South, even in the most Southern of states, voted for Bush. Fancy that!
evidence of the racial divide that still exists in the south. not exactly something to be bragging about.
http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/atlas/censr01-106.pdf
check out figure 4 and compare it to an election results map. it's sad that the south is still so divided along racial lines.

hauntedheadnc

November 29th, 2004, 05:23 AM

Right, Qwerty. We've just been featured in the New York Times, Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, USA Today, American Style magazine, Attache magazine, Washington Post, and we've only had movies like Hannibal, the Clearing, and Last of the Mohicans filmed here, and it sure isn't like the Biltmore Estate hasn't appeared on While You Were Out, and the Early Show...

You're right. Nobody's ever heard of us.

hauntedheadnc

November 29th, 2004, 05:24 AM

Oh yeah... Biltmore Estate was on the cover of National Geographic Traveler... almost forgot about that one!

hauntedheadnc

November 29th, 2004, 05:27 AM

Funny you'd be talking about racial divides in the South when most of the Midwest doesn't have that many races to speak of. You're a hell of a lot more lily white than we are, pal.

Toggie

November 29th, 2004, 05:33 AM

I apologize that my ancestors didn't have slaves.

hauntedheadnc

November 29th, 2004, 05:34 AM

Hypocrite. Neither did mine.

texasboy

November 29th, 2004, 05:35 AM

I guess I will post pics of the main soutern cities.

Houston
SCROLL>>>
http://dallasmetropolis.com/photos/houctm015.JPG

Miami
http://img95.exs.cx/img95/3590/keybiscayne2.jpg

Atlanta
http://www.howetotravel.com/graphics/atlanta_skyline_large.jpg

Dallas
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/samclark/dfw/dallas_1.jpg

Charlotte
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/544/1953dscf0013_skyline_full.jpg

Jacksonville
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/thelakelander/jacksonville+2004/downtown/skyline-acosta.jpg

Tampa
http://www.pbase.com/arkovich/image/29074217.jpg

New Orleans
http://www.pbase.com/455rocket/image/5486818.jpg

Nashville
http://www.pbase.com/deadelvis/image/21053460.jpg

Austin
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/588/6251190293423iictmz_ph.jpg

San Antonio
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/823/2874skyline_far.jpg

Memphis
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/758/3192memphis.jpg

Louisville
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/771/3041louisville_at_night.jpg

Fort Worth
http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/800/5432downtownft_worth.jpg

qwerty1324

November 29th, 2004, 05:39 AM

texasboy, here you go.

Chicago:
http://www.philipmalenfant.com/chi2251

The Urban Politician

November 29th, 2004, 05:40 AM

From that response, I do not even think it would be necessary for you to post on this thread. Believe me, not all places in the south are not like your stereotypical view of Tennessee.

Spare the chastising, Texasboy.

Yes, I am upset that the south supported Bush. It is dissappointing. As disheartening as it is for people like you and hauntedhead to hear this, people with your viewpoints are VERY much the exception to the rule. Most southerners do not see the world in the way that you guys do. And yes, I'm not so stupid as to not realize that there are a large portion of open-minded people in the south. Finally, I spent 4 years of my life living in Tennessee

But there just aren't enough...

hudkina

November 29th, 2004, 05:41 AM

Seriously, why do southerners think the term "white" means only one type of person. In the Midwest "white" refers to a plethora of cultures and peoples. From arabs, italians, greeks, germans, poles, spaniards, hispanics, norwegians, danes, russians, britons, scots, and slavics, to serbians, czechs, turks, persians, french, swiss, etc. Each with different languages, backgrounds, and histories. Just because the northern cities weren't former slave states, doesn't mean they aren't diverse. In fact, the midwest is far more diverse in cultures and ethnicities than the south.

hauntedheadnc

November 29th, 2004, 05:44 AM

Bull.

fwskyline

November 29th, 2004, 05:44 AM

Seriously, why do southerners think the term "white" means only one type of person.
Hey now, I don't think it's fair to base all southerners opinions on the one that one individual southerner has. Both regions are quite diverse, and each should be equally proud of the different cultures they contain.

The Urban Politician

November 29th, 2004, 05:44 AM

Edit

Toggie

November 29th, 2004, 05:47 AM

Hypocrite. Neither did mine.
please explain
1. where have I contradicted myself
2. where did I say that you specifically had slave owning ancestors.

it is a fact that the diversity of the south is a direct result of slavery, when southerners brag about diversity they are bragging about slavery. it's quite ironic if you think about it.

texasboy

November 29th, 2004, 05:51 AM

Toggie

November 29th, 2004, 06:12 AM

since the import of slaves from Africa was ended in the early 1800's immigration from Africa has been minuscule. http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=1820&c=2

the south does not have a particularly high concentration of Asians, and the concentration of Hispanics in the southwest is due to it's proximity to Mexico.

ReddAlert

November 29th, 2004, 06:14 AM

Enough about the damn election..my god! You people base how "cool" your area is if they voted for that assclown John Kerry. I dont wanna jump into politics..because it wont solve a damn thing. All you'll do is whine like Europeans about Bush and its getting real old. Grow up and face the facts--he's our President! Also dont turn this into a skyline battle either--the South has the glitzy, everything is bigger in Texas mentality in that kinda stuff. Chicago is king of skylines in this battle--nothing on this continent compares--except NY. The Midwest boast some of the best universities in the country (Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc.) We have the best spring/fall weather in my mind. Our winters, while cold, are much more beautiful than the snowless south. The south is god awfully humid also (same with Midwest) I couldnt imagine the anguish living in a Louisiana swampland. Crime is horrendous in the south--even in cities Ive never heard of. The Midwest also has crime cities as well--but not every single major city is one! The south has nice beaches and land diversity, yet also has worse natural disasters--hurracanes etc. The Midwest boasts a diverse landscape as well---rolling hills, virgin forests, Door County, sanddunes, THE GREAT LAKES!!-- which are very pleasant, marshes, cornfields,--stuff the south has as well, plus more. The south has more vicous animals-gators,killer bees,black widow spiders. The south is very religious, which is cool. Just a little assesment lol. Oh yeah, dont always bring up gay population to make your city sound so urban and cool. Milwaukee has a very high lesbian population too. BTW--That ship that sunk was the Edmund Fitzgerald. The Great Lakes are very dangerous too---there are many shipwrecks off Door County in Wisconsin--called "Door of Death" or "Deaths Door" by the French due to these rough waters. Right now they are dealing with very old French fur trading ship that sunk way back in 1600's I think.

fwskyline

November 29th, 2004, 06:18 AM

the concentration of Hispanics in the southwest is due to it's proximity to Mexico.
No...the concentration of Mexican immigrants in the southwest is due to it's proximity to Mexico. The other hispanics (yes, we do exist outside of Mexico) come for other reasons.

I thought the midwest had a fairly large population of Central American migrant workers, at least in the 50's or so. Has that changed?

texasboy

November 29th, 2004, 06:22 AM

So Toggie, are you telling me that the south has always held the distinction of being diverse, even in the early 20th century, when slavery did not exist. I hope not. Most of the diversity came in the late 20th century, and it was not because of the reasons that you stated. Hell, the south was not even as diverse as it is today in the early 80's.

Skanky the Boricuo

November 29th, 2004, 06:24 AM

I'll keep this short. I voted for the midwest. I think that when the stereotypes are completely taken out of the equation, the midwest simply offers more overall. The weather? Sure, thats a no brainer for the south...unless you like snow. Scenery? Probably the south as well. However, in every other category I don't really see how the south could have the advantage. I like the south alot. Hell, i'm a product of the south. I just like the midwest a little more.

And please people...cut the bullshit. The south is filled with highly educated people of all colors, and creeds and it even has gays and urbanity. Its true. The midwest likewise has gorgeous scenery, nice weather, and vibrant and growing neighborhoods that aren't abandoned.

fwskyline

November 29th, 2004, 06:27 AM

And please people...cut the bullshit.
This is a SSC vs. thread, don't you think you're asking a bit much? ;)

Toggie

November 29th, 2004, 06:37 AM

texasboy

November 29th, 2004, 06:39 AM

what type of diversity are you talking about?

Diversity that comes from immigration and not slavery.

hudkina

November 29th, 2004, 06:53 AM

BTW, here's a little tidbit about diversity.

The South makes up 35.6% of the U.S. population.
The Midwest makes up 22.9% of the U.S. population.

If every ethnic group was dispersed so as to reflect the total percentage of each region, the South would need a total of about 509,000 Danes, for example, while the Midwest would need a total of about 328,000 Danes. However, There are only about 184,000 Danes in the South, while there are about 477,000 Danes in the Midwest. The South is underrepresented by Danes, while the Midwest is overrepresented. This is not a unique case.

In fact, there are only seven ethnic groups that have higher than normal representation in the South. (What that means is that there are only seven ethnic groups where 35.6% or more live in the South.)

They are:
Arcadian/Cajun - 85.5%
American - 55.2%
Scotch-Irish - 44.0%
Subsaharan African (NOT African American) - 42.9%
West Indian - 39.0%
British - 37.9%
Alsatian - 35.9%

On the other hand, there are 34 ethnic groups that have a higher than normal representation in the Midwest.

They are:
Luxembourger - 68.3%
Chaldean - 62.1%
Slovene - 59.0%
Belgian - 56.6%
Macedonian - 54.1%
Norwegian - 49.8%
Czech - 49.6%
Serbian - 48.4%
Finnish - 47.5%
Croatian - 43.7%
German - 39.9%
Swedish - 39.8%
Maltese - 38.0%
Polish - 37.8%
Dutch - 36.1%
Slovak - 35.3%
Swiss - 34.7%
Danish - 33.4%
Czechoslovakian - 33.0%
Hungarian - 32.0%
Scandanavian - 30.4%
Yugoslavian - 30.0%
Bulgarian - 29.2%
Lithuanian - 28.1%
Romanian - 27.1%
Latvian - 26.3%
Slavik - 26.2%
Albanian - 25.7%
Icelander - 25.6%
Irish - 24.9%
French - 24.4%
Arab - 24.1%
Austrian - 23.8%
Welsh - 23.7%

Basically, what this means that even though the Midwest only accounts for 22.9% of the total U.S. population, it accounts for, for example, over 68% of the Luxembourger population, nearly 40% of the German population, and about 50% of the Norwegian population. Or that even though the South accounts for 35.6% of the total U.S. population, it accounts for nearly 86% of the total Cajun population.

As you see, the South is made up mainly made up of people who descended from the British Isles, or certain regions in France. Aside from that, the only groups that are more proportionately represented in the South are West Indians and Subsaharan Africans.

The Midwest on the other hand has a vast aray of cultures and ethnicities that have representation higher than the total Midwest percentage.

Toggie

November 29th, 2004, 07:00 AM

http://www-map.lib.umn.edu/bessie/usa/german.gif
http://www-map.lib.umn.edu/bessie/usa/english.gif
http://www-map.lib.umn.edu/bessie/usa/italian.gif
http://www-map.lib.umn.edu/bessie/usa/slovak.gif
http://www-map.lib.umn.edu/bessie/usa/norwegian.gif
http://www-map.lib.umn.edu/bessie/usa/swedish.gif
http://www-map.lib.umn.edu/bessie/usa/asian.gif
http://www-map.lib.umn.edu/bessie/usa/hispanic.gif

sleepy

November 29th, 2004, 07:07 AM

it is a fact that the diversity of the south is a direct result of slavery, when southerners brag about diversity they are bragging about slavery. it's quite ironic if you think about it.

So what?

Southern culture is a combination of black and white.

Music, literature, and food.

Blacks are in the South as a result of slavery, and that's unfortunate, but blacks are in Minnesota because of slavery--they wouldn't have been here to begin with.

And there's a shared culture in the South regardless. My white mom's from Mississippi and I grew up eating what people outside the region call black food--cornbread, black-eyed peas, grits, greens, you name it--yet only non-Southerners considered that exclusively black food.

In the South, that's considered Southern cooking. Period.

And much of America's music came out of the Southern diversity caused by the interaction of black and white southern culture.

So sometimes, diversity has an organic, dynamic meaning outside of some PC definition. It might just come out of a bunch of poor southern whites and poor southern blacks interacting culturally.

sleepy

November 29th, 2004, 07:16 AM

M. Brown

November 29th, 2004, 07:18 AM

So what?

Southern culture is a combination of black and white.

Music, literature, and food.

Blacks are in the South as a result of slavery, and that's unfortunate, but blacks are in Minnesota because of slavery--they wouldn't have been here to begin with.

And there's a shared culture in the South regardless. My white mom's from Mississippi and I grew up eating what people outside the region call black food--cornbread, black-eyed peas, grits, greens, you name it--yet only non-Southerners considered that exclusively black food.

In the South, that's considered Southern cooking. Period.

And much of America's music came out of the Southern diversity caused by the interaction of black and white southern culture.

So sometimes, diversity has an organic, dynamic meaning outside of some PC definition. It might just come out of a bunch of poor southern whites and poor southern blacks interacting culturally.
true I guess...especially the food thing.

Justadude

November 29th, 2004, 12:35 PM

What did you have in mind then, Charlotte? You seem to have a huge southern bias.

If you want to put it in Midwest vs. South terms: San Antonio, Orlando, New Orleans, Nashville, Memphis, Austin and maybe even Jacksonville (as much as I hate that city) are all the same size or smaller than Indy and clearly have more vibrant downtowns. That's not bias, that's something verifiable by anybody who's actually been to these places.

There's also Vegas, if you want to go nationwide.

Justadude

November 29th, 2004, 12:36 PM

I wonder what cities like St. Louis and Chicago would be like today if it wasn't for the Southern black culture that crept up the Mississippi and infused their downtowns with the identity that they boast about today...

Justadude

November 29th, 2004, 12:55 PM

Northern, urban, and cosmopolitan. Period. Defend your region of the country as much as you want, but I have lived in the south and I have seen the election results.

You know, ordinarily I wouldn't stoop to respond to a political comment that has no place in this discussion whatsoever.

But this is just too juicy! Do you really need to be reminded which two states were the lynchpins in determining the election this year? Here's a couple hints: One starts with an O, ends with an o, and is located squarely in the Midwest... the other starts with an I, ends with an a, and is also located in the Midwest!

This is just too funny. Yeah, the Midwest has long been known as a real cradle of liberalism! :hahaha:

SChristopher

November 29th, 2004, 03:11 PM

Out of San Antonio, Orlando, New Orleans, Nashville, Memphis, Austin and Jacksonville I think San Antonio and New Orleans are the only ones that out perform the downtown activity of Indianapolis. Maybe you should go sometime? I am not feeding into this retarded "region versus region" non-sense, though I will say that it is pretty equal. I have never heard of Texas and florida being in the "southern" region, except on these internet forums, perhaps because of the extreme spanish influence, none the less they are south I guess. For every empty state in the midwest there is Mississippi or Alabama to match it up for populated states there is an Ohio Illinois or Michigan or whatever. They are different regions and the cities are going to be different because they grew up at different times. With all of your cranes everywhere many older cities in the NE and Midwest already have the office space or hotels, no need to build for the sake of building.

The anti-cheesehead

November 29th, 2004, 03:42 PM

Actually, dear heart, I was pointing out that you have evil Bush voters up there, and we have angelic Kerry voters down here. Therefore, the issue of the election (the crux of the biscuit, as it were) is not as black and white (or blue and red) as you think or would prefer. Just drives you crazy, doesn't it?

Gee whiz. You mean that not every single person in the south voted for Bush? You felt like you needed to point that out?

Admit it. Your comment about more counties in Mississippi going for Kerry than in Minnesota was stupid. Stupid as hell.

hudkina

November 29th, 2004, 03:43 PM

At some point, and no disrespect meant to the ethnic Germans hereabouts, I would question whether for example, there is that much meaning to attach an ethnic tag to people in the year 2004 who have German, Belgian, Norwegian, Czech, Irish, or Finnish ancestry. My list could go on.

I would agree with you except for the fact that not everyone who belong to this ethnic group moved to this country hundreds of years ago. Many have only done say one or two generations ago. The identities and cultures of these people are still prominent. Why do you think there are more people in the South who claim to be simply "American"? People who are "American" are basically people who aren't strongly associated with any particular ethnic group. These are the people who you are wanting to refer to as "tagless".

cwilson758

November 29th, 2004, 03:45 PM

If you want to put it in Midwest vs. South terms: San Antonio, Orlando, New Orleans, Nashville, Memphis, Austin and maybe even Jacksonville (as much as I hate that city) are all the same size or smaller than Indy and clearly have more vibrant downtowns. That's not bias, that's something verifiable by anybody who's actually been to these places.

There's also Vegas, if you want to go nationwide.

You ARE kidding, right???

I have been to every city mentioned with the exception of San Antonio and you think that they all have better downtowns than Indy??? Orlando and Jacksonville, PLEASE! I almost take this as an insult. Have you ever been to Indianapolis? Indy is a very well-rounded downtown with something to accomodate any taste and style. The shopping is pretty good, there are a number of museums, there are very well-known upscale chain restaurants AND local establishments, as well as White River State Park and the Canal, and a good selection of drinking establishements. Granted, each city listed has a good downtown, but with the exception of New Orleans' Frech Quarter (and San Antonio since I haven't been there), Indy is the most well-rounded of the group. Memphis, Nashville, and Austin are geared more towards a certain group of people. As much as I love Nashville, there dwowntown SUCKS if you aren't into cowboy hats and country music.

I just think that you are COMPLETELY wrong on this.

Justadude

November 29th, 2004, 04:54 PM

Memphis, Nashville, and Austin are geared more towards a certain group of people. As much as I love Nashville, there dwowntown SUCKS if you aren't into cowboy hats and country music.

You obviously haven't spent much time in Nashville. While country music is obviously prominent, there's a ton of other stuff to do in that downtown. On any given night I'd say there are probably more rock groups playing on Broadway than country groups. There are a pretty large number of dance clubs. It matches Indianapolis for pro sports (Titans and Predators), though it obviously lacks an equivalent racing scene. To characterize it as "cowboy hats and country music" is like saying Los Angeles is nothing but models and sleazy record producers. Nashville is by far a more exciting place to be than Indianapolis after hours, and its daytime scene is basically the same.

Austin is geared toward a certain group of people!? Again, I find it hard to imagine someone spending any significant time there and coming out with that impression.

Memphis is a little more one-dimensional I grant you, but when Indy comes up with an answer to Beale Street let me know.

As for the others.... Indy has nothing that competes with Orlando's attractions. Disney World? Sea World? Universal Studios? Indy has nothing that people recognize on a national scale that way (maybe possibly the Indy 500, which is once a year?). Not to mention the clubs, restaurants, major hotels, beaches, water parks, golf courses, and other stuff that goes on. It's an entertainment mecca, not to mention a very fast-growing city. I don't even particularly like Orlando, but saying it's not as vibrant as Indianapolis is a joke.

I'm not sure about Jacksonville, which is why I qualified it. Frankly I think it's a pretty crappy town, but it seems to have a pretty solid downtown scene.

San Antonio is one of the most attractive downtowns in the country, period. No contest.

And like I said it's a bit off topic, but Vegas blows Indy away for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying Indy is dead or a bad city, but saying it's the most vibrant city of its size is crazy talk. There are easily more than half a dozen smaller cities that have a hell of a lot more to do than Indianapolis.

SChristopher

November 29th, 2004, 05:23 PM

I thought the focus was on Downtowns then you bring disney into it which isnt really even in Orlando LOL....get off your trip dude.

cwilson758

November 29th, 2004, 05:35 PM

My old roommate lives in Nash-Vegas....at one point a few years ago, I drove down every weekend for about 6 months, so of all of the cities listed, I have spent the most time in Nashville. Again, I really like Nashville, and I am not saying that there isn't something going on, or that it isn't vibrant, it is just a little more one-demensional than Indianapolis.

As for Orlando, I DO NOT deny Orlando's attractions, but they are not downtown. Isn't that what I was replying to, a comment about the downtown's? My mother lived in Orlando for a period of time, so I would say that I have visited Orlando the second-most of the list. They have Church Street Station, which is cool and brings people downtown, but the downtown is so spread-out and the shopping isn't nearly as good as in downtown Indy, so again, my vote goes to Indy on this one.

Austin is cool, very cool, but a lot more music-themed than Indy. I am talking about something to do for everyone.

Again, outside of the downtown's, you have an argument, but you can't say a city's dowtown is better than anothers and then start tossing-in Walt Disney World's and the Vegas strip to quantify your argument.

teshadoh

November 29th, 2004, 05:46 PM

And the median IQ level continues to drop faster than the temperature...

But please continue, I appreciate the complete honesty in this thread. Too often, people feel uncomfortable embracing their idiot self & actually try to hide the fact that they are actually stupid! But not here - so many openly stating: "I am stupid & I don't know what the shit I'm talking about!". Good for you all - there is no need to be ashamed to be what you truly are. I'll check back at page 15 to see how the internet enrollment form for idiots is doing.

Justadude

November 29th, 2004, 06:30 PM

Again, I really like Nashville, and I am not saying that there isn't something going on, or that it isn't vibrant, it is just a little more one-demensional than Indianapolis.

In what way? I can't think of anything you can do in Indianapolis you can't do in Nashville...

Isn't that what I was replying to, a comment about the downtown's?

Ok, I would agree then that Indy beats out Orlando strictly in terms of downtown life. But what's the point of retricting the discussion to downtowns? That would mean we couldn't talk about suburbs either, which would seriosly hurt any argument to be made in favor of Detroit. When comparing city to city, it seems a little odd to exclude anything outside a couple dozen blocks in a particular area. If anything, that kind of criterion really slants the argument against Southern cities since they tend to be less centralized.

Austin is cool, very cool, but a lot more music-themed than Indy. I am talking about something to do for everyone.

There's plenty to do in Austin besides music. It's a state capitol, and has all the accompanying museums and cultural institutions you'd expect. There's UT, which has more to do by itself than some medium-sized towns. There's the trolleys, 6th Street (which has a lot more than just music going for it), a smallish zoo, Town Lake, and the bizarreness of the bats flying out from under the Congress Avenue bridge.

Skanky the Boricuo

November 29th, 2004, 06:32 PM

Am I the ONLY person here who enjoys both of these regions? It appears as though most people have some sort of stereotype that they hold to be true.

cwilson758

November 29th, 2004, 07:08 PM

Justadude--

You are the one that mentioned that city X, Y, ad Z had a more vibrant downtown than Indy...and then siad it was something that was verifiable by any who had visited. In which case, I disagreed. Indy has done everything in its power to put all attractions downtown. There is the zoo, IUPUI, our sports teams, the State Museum, White River State Park, the NCAA Hall of Champions, Eiteljorg, the Symphony, the Reperatory theatre, a large number of art galleries, Circle Centre, and much more all downtown.

As for Nash-vegas, the shopping and restaurants in downtown do not compare to Indy. That simple. The West-End is definately on it's way to being a great place, but there is still work to do.

cwilson758

November 29th, 2004, 07:11 PM

Am I the ONLY person here who enjoys both of these regions? It appears as though most people have some sort of stereotype that they hold to be true.

NO!! I love Atlanta, Nashville, Miami, and Savannah!

TexasBoi

November 29th, 2004, 07:20 PM

Am I the ONLY person here who enjoys both of these regions? It appears as though most people have some sort of stereotype that they hold to be true.

nope. i enjoy both as well

sleepy

November 29th, 2004, 07:31 PM

I would agree with you except for the fact that not everyone who belong to this ethnic group moved to this country hundreds of years ago. Many have only done say one or two generations ago. The identities and cultures of these people are still prominent. Why do you think there are more people in the South who claim to be simply "American"? People who are "American" are basically people who aren't strongly associated with any particular ethnic group. These are the people who you are wanting to refer to as "tagless".

I'm second generation Irish. My grandparents emigrated to Chicago about 90 or so years ago. Neither myself nor my Irish cousins still living in Chicago have much Irish identity at all. Most of them married Lithuanians, Poles, Germans, etc., you name it, moved to the suburbs or left for the Sunbelt. I grew up eating soda bread and was raised a Catholic. That's about it.

If anything--and this is no particular slam on Chicago, it's just America in general--their ethnic identity is "white" in the context of not being "black" or "hispanic".

Justadude

November 29th, 2004, 07:52 PM

You are the one that mentioned that city X, Y, ad Z had a more vibrant downtown than Indy...and then siad it was something that was verifiable by any who had visited. In which case, I disagreed.

I took exception to the claim that Indy's downtown is the most vibrant in the nation for its size, which I take as a patently false statement. At the very least, New Orleans and San Antonio are both way ahead. Austin is ahead as well, though by less of a margin. So at the very least that's three cities that I think anyone who knows them well can agree on. To be honest when I mentioned Orlando I wasn't really thinking strictly in terms of downtown, but of the overall city vibrance. If you go that route, there are several more cities that can claim to be more vibrant. Anyway, the point is that there are easily three Southern cities of comparable size that can butt heads with Indy's DT any day. I still think Nashville's in there as well but I'll let that one go.

The original point goes back to the fact that Indianapolis remains a "bland" city in the national consciousness. In that sense it's more like a Charlotte or Norfolk than a Milwaukee or Cleveland. So in the context of Midwest vs. South (which we should be getting back to before too long, else the thread will die), Indy isn't exactly the first place I would raise as a paragon of Midwestern superiority.

Justadude

November 29th, 2004, 08:05 PM

it is a fact that the diversity of the south is a direct result of slavery, when southerners brag about diversity they are bragging about slavery. it's quite ironic if you think about it.

Oh, please. This is 2004, not 1860. The South's black population has been integrated (culturally speaking, if not politically) for quite some time now. As was pointed out a few posts back, almost all Southern culture is informed in one way or another by the black population. Blues and jazz, two of the South's great contributions to America (and two of America's great contributions to the world) came out of a fusion between black and white musical styles. "Southern" food is a mixture of black and white cooking styles. Even the great literature and visual art that has arisen from the South has been very strongly influenced by racial interaction. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I can come up with any kind of cultural institution in the South that isn't in some way shaped by racial interaction.

Is all of the South's racial history pretty? Of course not. Nowhere in the US can lay stake to such a claim. But acting as though the Southern black population doesn't count as diversity because of something that ended 150 years ago is ridiculous.

This is also seriously discounting the Hispanic diversity to be found in the South. Not just in Florida and Texas, either; it's growing all over the place. There's also at least two languages (Creole, Gullah) other than English that are native to the South and still spoken by a small population. The South has long been a place of ethnic fusion.

cwilson758

November 29th, 2004, 08:55 PM

I took exception to the claim that Indy's downtown is the most vibrant in the nation for its size, which I take as a patently false statement. At the very least, New Orleans and San Antonio are both way ahead. Austin is ahead as well, though by less of a margin. So at the very least that's three cities that I think anyone who knows them well can agree on. To be honest when I mentioned Orlando I wasn't really thinking strictly in terms of downtown, but of the overall city vibrance. If you go that route, there are several more cities that can claim to be more vibrant. Anyway, the point is that there are easily three Southern cities of comparable size that can butt heads with Indy's DT any day. I still think Nashville's in there as well but I'll let that one go.

The original point goes back to the fact that Indianapolis remains a "bland" city in the national consciousness. In that sense it's more like a Charlotte or Norfolk than a Milwaukee or Cleveland. So in the context of Midwest vs. South (which we should be getting back to before too long, else the thread will die), Indy isn't exactly the first place I would raise as a paragon of Midwestern superiority.

I'll buy that! :)

james2390

November 29th, 2004, 10:23 PM

Hmmm.... WOW! I have to move to Asheville now! What an exciting city!

Here's some news: I'm not white, I"m not married, and I will NEVER move to Asheville

Northern, urban, and cosmopolitan. Period. Defend your region of the country as much as you want, but I have lived in the south and I have seen the election results. You guys have too many bible belt hillbillies, and be pissed off at me for saying this as much as you want, but it sucks down there and you'll never understand as long as you're white

LOL, bible belt hillbillies. Thats nice, can't say I have ever met one. I don't understand what is wrong with someone who follows a religion. And usually, someone who follows a religion will be very dedicated to it. I don't understand what the hillbilly part is about though. Everyone who I have met that goes to a southern baptist church, is quite clean cut and well rounded, and most of them live in subdivisions, not bungalo shacks in Mississippi. These people are civilized.

And also, what is all this shit about hillbillies anyways. You guys slam the south for being so sprawly. Even if the homes are on cul-de-sacs, they are still quite nice and expensive in some cases. I have never seen this livng in an average southern neighborhood.
http://img113.exs.cx/img113/8766/hayseed_original.jpg

texasboy

November 29th, 2004, 10:32 PM

I don't understand what is wrong with someone who follows a religion.

This is a first for me too.

james2390

November 29th, 2004, 10:58 PM

Go figure, if the religion doesn't bother you, why even care what others believe in?

pwright1

November 29th, 2004, 11:44 PM

The picture of the white guy by the pickup truck could be anywhere U.S.A.

Yankee BOY

November 30th, 2004, 02:22 AM

Personally I think the south is ugly at least where I live. I live on the emerald coast of Florida with its green glassy calm water thats warm as a tub with white sugary sand, but the everything behind the beach is so Freakin Ugly the forests and trees suck. Cannot stand the brutal humid summers I like that dry California Heat where you can actually go outside. Maybe prefer northern midwest because they experience all 4 seasons.

james2390

November 30th, 2004, 03:05 AM

Believe me, the South's forests are alot better than the cornfields in many midwestern states.

The anti-cheesehead

November 30th, 2004, 03:27 AM

Believe me, the South's forests are alot better than the cornfields in many midwestern states.

What about the South's cornfields? Are they better than the forests of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc?

The midwest has some of the densest forests in the country. Northern Minnesota's forests are about as untouched as you can get.

The anti-cheesehead

November 30th, 2004, 03:44 AM

I figure now would be a good time to post some of my personal non cornfield related midwestern pics (Minnesota).

http://img103.exs.cx/img103/9838/3548.jpg

http://img8.exs.cx/img8/5784/20726.jpg

http://img8.exs.cx/img8/491/20728.jpg

http://img8.exs.cx/img8/71/20729.jpg

http://img8.exs.cx/img8/5366/20730.jpg

http://img8.exs.cx/img8/737/20731.jpg

http://img8.exs.cx/img8/5193/20733.jpg

http://img8.exs.cx/img8/9606/20735.jpg

http://img8.exs.cx/img8/1757/20738.jpg

http://img8.exs.cx/img8/4923/20740.jpg

http://img8.exs.cx/img8/6075/20741.jpg

texasboy

November 30th, 2004, 03:47 AM

The midwest has some of the densest forests in the country. Northern Minnesota's forests are about as untouched as you can get.

OMG. Now we are talking about density in the forest. Density is probably the most typed word on this froum.

The anti-cheesehead

November 30th, 2004, 03:49 AM

OMG. Now we are talking about density in the forest. Density is probably the most typed word on this froum.

What's wrong with talking about denisty in the forest? Some forests are dense, some are not so dense. There are forests in Minnesota that you can't walk through unless there's a moose trail or you're a little critter. I guess you'd have to experience it to know why I even bring it up.

texasboy

November 30th, 2004, 04:03 AM

What's wrong with talking about denisty in the forest? Some forests are dense, some are not so dense. There are forests in Minnesota that you can't walk through unless there's a moose trail or you're a little critter. I guess you'd have to experience it to know why I even bring it up.

I understand what you are saying, but what is so unique about that? Those can easily be found in any region of the country.

The anti-cheesehead

November 30th, 2004, 04:13 AM

I understand what you are saying, but what is so unique about that? Those can easily be found in any region of the country.

Well, you can find dense forests in other states, but Minnesota is one of the only states in the lower 48 that has a northern boreal forest. That makes it unique. The pictures that I posted are from this region in Minnesota.

Northern boreal forest coverage in North America:

http://img129.exs.cx/img129/5512/bmap.jpg

M. Brown

November 30th, 2004, 04:16 AM

Well, you can find dense forests in other states, but Minnesota is one of the only states in the lower 48 that has a northern boreal forest. That makes it unique. The pictures that I posted are from this region in Minnesota.

Northern boreal forest coverage in North America:

http://img129.exs.cx/img129/5512/bmap.jpg
Dont forget New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. :)

pwright1

November 30th, 2004, 04:16 AM

The south all the way. :)

The anti-cheesehead

November 30th, 2004, 04:27 AM

Dont forget New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. :)

But we're talking midwest right? So, it's the only state in the midwest with that kind of forest....and it has the biggest chunk of that kind of forest in the lower 48....and it's on Lake Superior....and it's some of the most stunning scenery in the country...and some of the oldest rock in the world :)

james2390

November 30th, 2004, 04:40 AM

What about the South's cornfields? Are they better than the forests of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc?

The midwest has some of the densest forests in the country. Northern Minnesota's forests are about as untouched as you can get.
I think we could all agree that the south has way more forests than the midwest, and the midwest has alot more cornfields than the south;)

Yankee BOY

November 30th, 2004, 04:50 AM

I agree with james the south has a lot of forests. South is one giant jungle made of pine trees and wild rednecks.

NCtarheel

November 30th, 2004, 04:53 AM

Does the midwest have unique small cities like Asheville or Savannah?? Also, what cities in the midwest have hosted the olympics? Just curious

Jasonhouse

November 30th, 2004, 04:56 AM

Hey folks, this forum is about highrises and urban spaces/development.

Stick to the intent of this forum please.

texasboy

November 30th, 2004, 05:22 AM

Does the midwest have unique small cities like Asheville or Savannah?? Also, what cities in the midwest have hosted the olympics? Just curious

I think St Louis has hosted the olympics, but again, it really does not matter.

I do agree that the south has more charming smaller cities like Asheville, Galveston, Charleston, Savannah, and St Petersburg.

hudkina

November 30th, 2004, 06:08 AM

The Midwest has a lot of "small, charming" cities. Some of the more famous ones are Ann Arbor and Madison. But, yes, the midwest is dotted with them.

mjtinmemphis

November 30th, 2004, 06:30 AM

wild rednecks.
You aint right!!!

(sniker laugh laugh)

You know that southerners are sophisticated people too.

ReddAlert

November 30th, 2004, 06:32 AM

texasboy

November 30th, 2004, 06:34 AM

Are there cities like this in the midwest of this caliber with populations of only 100,000?

Charleston
http://www.pbase.com/hillaryp/image/27034674.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/dfulk/image/17425167.jpg

Savannah
http://www.pbase.com/deseo/image/20352054.jpg

Galveston. Population under 60,000
http://www.thestrand.com/images/tour/p19.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/lwh/image/32015034.jpg

ReddAlert

November 30th, 2004, 06:49 AM

yeah yeah..the south and all it colorful housing glory... :)

hudkina

November 30th, 2004, 06:52 AM

No, because most of the South's cities remained stagnant for decades, while the cities in the north exploded in population. Savannah and Charleston should have reached the status of Pittsburgh or St. Louis. However, Savannah and Charleston never saw the huge population boom that their northern brethren experienced, so they got left in the dust.

NCtarheel

November 30th, 2004, 07:32 AM

Actually, some southern cities purposefully avoided population growth because of some of the drawbacks. At any rate the areas experienced growth at different times ...MOST of the southern cities were not growing really by leaps and bounds backwhen the midwestern cities were (so savannah would not be like pittsburgh) . However, in some ways the opposite is true now--how many midwestern cities are growing like atlanta, orlando, RDU, charlotte, etc.?.
And towns like Ann Arbor aren't really what I meant by small and charming...it's nice but it's a college town....And the south has college towns all over the place. Chapel Hill, Charlottesville, Athens just to name the best three (IMO) etc. etc.

pwright1

November 30th, 2004, 09:15 AM

Savannah, Galveston and Charleston are big reasons why I picked the south.

M. Brown

November 30th, 2004, 12:39 PM

But we're talking midwest right? So, it's the only state in the midwest with that kind of forest....and it has the biggest chunk of that kind of forest in the lower 48....and it's on Lake Superior....and it's some of the most stunning scenery in the country...and some of the oldest rock in the world :)
But you said only state in the lower 48.

The anti-cheesehead

November 30th, 2004, 01:50 PM

But you said only state in the lower 48.

Minnesota is one of the only states in the lower 48.

You have to read a little more closely.

Buckley

November 30th, 2004, 04:44 PM

whats up with this dude saying the midwest has all these cornfields? Look at Minnesota, Wisconisn, Michigan....cliffs, islands, dunes, waterfalls (which we got alot of) and those amazing Lake Superior pics that Cheesehead posted! Ive seen some great pics of Superior with beautiful "glacierlike" formations that the South does not have. Charming cities---Makinac Island, Door County towns, Ann Arbor.etc....

Corn fields (or other boring landscape) dominate most of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa (hence, the "cornbelt"). These are commonly accepted to be part of the Midwest, aren't they? I'm not sure if midwesterners claim ND, SD, NE, or KS anymore; although, ther Black Hills are cool.

Sure, the northern aspects of MI, WI, and MN are nice. But, who's to say that area is more attractive or spectacular than the southern Appalachians in VA, NC, TN, and even GA? I don't think so. Are Ann Arbor and Madison really more interesting/attractive college towns than Charlottesville, Chapel Hill, or Athens (as pointed out by Tarheel)? Do towns in Makinac Island and Door County (I don't really know any towns there) really outshine Savannah, Charleston, and Asheville in terms of charm?

M. Brown

November 30th, 2004, 08:15 PM

You have to read a little more closely.
My B

hauntedheadnc

November 30th, 2004, 10:36 PM

Edit -- I'm glad this "debate is finally starting to calm down.

james2390

November 30th, 2004, 10:53 PM

I agree with james the south has a lot of forests. South is one giant jungle made of pine trees and wild rednecks.
Good, I am glad you got my point. I can tell you haven't spent much time in the south if at all:|

james2390

November 30th, 2004, 10:55 PM

The Midwest has a lot of "small, charming" cities. Some of the more famous ones are Ann Arbor and Madison. But, yes, the midwest is dotted with them.
I think you forgot Gary and Toledo! ;)

Talbot

December 1st, 2004, 12:34 AM

What about the South's cornfields? Are they better than the forests of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc?

The midwest has some of the densest forests in the country. Northern Minnesota's forests are about as untouched as you can get.

I dont know about all southern cornfields, but ive seen cornfields in south Texas near South Padre Island that have palm tree's. Atleast there's some visual pleasure to the eye.

texasboy

December 1st, 2004, 01:11 AM

Like Jasonhouse commented, this is about highrises and urban spaces. Why are we talking about who has the better cornfields? Plus, the discusion gets very boring.

ralex231

December 1st, 2004, 02:08 AM

Well, after a brief stint as a city planner of Rooster's Ass, Mississippi, he left to take the job of mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina. He still has that same red pickup. According to Emporis anyway.

ok please sdfu and did I mention sdfu?

That is Stereotyping. Most southern people are educated and it is just you other people that have to make it a joke and be complete assholes about it.

The anti-cheesehead

December 1st, 2004, 02:19 AM

ok please sdfu and did I mention sdfu?

You're telling me to sdfu? Is that a southern accent? It's stfu, not sdfu. Geez, you southerners aren't even educated enough to get a profanity abbreviation right. :)

Anyway, why don't YOU stfu you csmfsob! It was a joke!
:bleh:

ralex231

December 1st, 2004, 02:23 AM

Typing sdfu up is faster than typing stfu up.

texasboy

December 1st, 2004, 02:25 AM

Talk aobut lazy. Because the d is closer to the s on the keyboard? Anyway, back on subject.

The anti-cheesehead

December 1st, 2004, 02:26 AM

Typing sdfu up is faster than typing stfu up.

Huh? :weird:

ralex231

December 1st, 2004, 02:42 AM

O well lol sry i didn't take it as a joke.
U have to move ur fingers more to type stfu up than sdfu so i just do it because it is faster and i am a lazy person.

The anti-cheesehead

December 1st, 2004, 02:54 AM

O well lol sry i didn't take it as a joke.
U have to move ur fingers more to type stfu up than sdfu so i just do it because it is faster and i am a lazy person.

They should offer keyboarding courses in the south. :)

The anti-cheesehead

December 1st, 2004, 03:00 AM

Why are we talking about who has the better cornfields?

People on the coasts must be sitting back, laughing their asses off at us debating about cornfields.

...No way, the midwest has better cornfields.....

....NO! FUCK YOU! the south has better cornfields, we have fuckin' palm trees in OUR cornfields...

....UH, the midwest INVENTED cornfields, so, there's no way the south's cornfields could be better...

...whatever assholes, the South is warmer, so our corn likes it better down here...

...SO? We make most of the pesticides here in the midwest. How'd you like if we stopped shipping it down south? Huh? Huh? What would your corn look like THEN?......

MIAballinboi

December 1st, 2004, 03:10 AM

I VOTE SOUTH
if florida is inlcuded,

no one can say anything bout miami or south florida its completely different from the "south" the culture and everything, the latin influence,

plus miami's MEGA boom that probably most of you dont know about.

i got nothing against the midwest though, love those skylines, chicagos great

james2390

December 1st, 2004, 03:15 AM

Just because Florida doesn't look like the other parts of the south, it doesn't mean it isn't a part of the south.

The anti-cheesehead

December 1st, 2004, 03:18 AM

It's funny how some people in Miami don't want to be considered part of the south, and people in the rest of the south want Miami to considered part of the south.

Edit:

You could probably say the same thing about Chicago and the midwest.

M. Brown

December 1st, 2004, 03:21 AM

People on the coasts must be sitting back, laughing their asses off at us debating about cornfields.

Yup :yes:

TexasBoi

December 1st, 2004, 03:31 AM

People on the coasts must be sitting back, laughing their asses off at us debating about cornfields.

...No way, the midwest has better cornfields.....

....NO! FUCK YOU! the south has better cornfields, we have fuckin' palm trees in OUR cornfields...

....UH, the midwest INVENTED cornfields, so, there's no way the south's cornfields could be better...

...whatever assholes, the South is warmer, so our corn likes it better down here...

...SO? We make most of the pesticides here in the midwest. How'd you like if we stopped shipping it down south? Huh? Huh? What would your corn look like THEN?......

lmao

The anti-cheesehead

December 1st, 2004, 03:32 AM

Yup :yes:

Are there any West Coast-East Coast comparison threads?

I think we should start one. It could go something like this:

...New York kicks the whole west coast's ass....

...So? The weather sucks and you guys have too many potholes in the roads...

...The east coast has real cities....

...Yeah, real old and crusty cities...

...So? At least we don't have smog like LA...

...Hey, I'd take smog anyday over living around rivers that smell like my asshole (charles river, east river, etc.)....

...What are you talking about? The LA river smells like my asshole....

...So? It only has sewage in it for part of the year, otherwise it's dry like your Mom's pussy....

:)

TexasBoi

December 1st, 2004, 03:32 AM

texasboy

December 1st, 2004, 03:33 AM

How about we just take FLA and Texas out of the southern picture lol j/p

Then I would vote for the midwest.

Justadude

December 1st, 2004, 12:54 PM

:deadthrea

Talbot

December 2nd, 2004, 03:50 AM

ralex231

December 4th, 2004, 06:12 PM

You're telling me to sdfu? Is that a southern accent? It's stfu, not sdfu. Geez, you southerners aren't even educated enough to get a profanity abbreviation right. :)

Anyway, why don't YOU stfu you csmfsob! It was a joke!
:bleh:

Oh by the way I moved to the south about 2 years ago before that I lived in Baltimore,MD.

so no I don't have a southern accent.

:deadthrea :lock:

MIAballinboi

December 7th, 2004, 01:38 AM

its not that we want to be sepearte from the south, its just that south florida is WAY different from it, like miami has the highest percent of foreingers living int it like 60 percent or more hispanic, were closer culturally to like cuba and south america then to like "alabama" or missisipi lool

i donno bout chicago and the midwest, why are they different again?

IHateBirds

December 12th, 2004, 01:27 AM

The anti-cheesehead

December 12th, 2004, 02:03 AM

Both the midwest and south are generally useless and undeveloped. Minus the handful of actual metropolitan areas, what's the population density of most of the midwest and south? Like 1 person per sq mile or less?

No, it's more than 1 person per square mile.

If how you measure a region's worth is by population density, and since we are talking about cities, then I guess the south is more worthless than the midwest considering that the cities of the midwest are more densly populated than the cities of the south.

Toggie

December 12th, 2004, 02:42 AM

most counties in the Midwest and south look to be about as dense as most of the northeast. and more dense than most of the west.
http://www.illinoisatlas.com/us/demographic/jpg/us_county_density.jpg

IHateBirds

December 12th, 2004, 03:02 AM

then I guess the south is more worthless than the midwest considering that the cities of the midwest are more densly populated than the cities of the south.

Yeah well, worthless is worthless--no one cares how lumpy the turd is, it is still just a turd.

And for the record--that fab bit of "reasoning" you just spewed is entirely illogical. I'd like to know what kind of education it took for such finely honed skills. No wonder that midwest education map looks so lit up--the standards must be sub-bedrock.
:jk:

The Urban Politician

December 12th, 2004, 05:29 AM

Notice how in the eastern half of the US counties are so much smaller than they are on the western half? Surprisingly, this is the case even in California. Being that California has such a large number of people, I wonder if they will start dividing up into different counties...

Toggie

December 12th, 2004, 06:12 AM

patents per 10,000 people
http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/specmap/us03-07.jpg
http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/specmap/us99-10.GIF
http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/specmap/us02-05.gif

The anti-cheesehead

December 12th, 2004, 06:44 AM

Yeah well, worthless is worthless--no one cares how lumpy the turd is, it is still just a turd.

And for the record--that fab bit of "reasoning" you just spewed is entirely illogical. I'd like to know what kind of education it took for such finely honed skills. No wonder that midwest education map looks so lit up--the standards must be sub-bedrock.
:jk:

Lol. It's YOUR reasoning of measuring worth by population density. Using YOUR reasoning, the South's cities are worthless compared to the Midwest's. This website is obviously about cities, you don't see too many skyscapers in rural areas.

The Urban Politician

December 12th, 2004, 07:00 AM

patents per 10,000 people
http://minneapolisfed.org/research/data/specmap/us03-07.jpg

Interesting how Utah has more patents per 10,000 people than Texas, or that Michigan and Minnesota gets more patents than Illinois.

Not sure how relevant these stats are..

whosyourdaddy

December 12th, 2004, 07:43 AM

Just wanted to add a few things here.

1. HauntedHeadNC- the reason why Mississippi has quite a few counties that voted for Kerry? MS si 37% African-American, whom last time I checked voted 90% for Kerry nationwide.

2. Although I agree that the South has a greater amount of diversity in its towns and landscapes, it's hard to deny that the South suffers in many factors of its quality of life, something that's widespread across almost all of the South.

Wasn't Minnesota consistently voted for its high quality of life on numerous issues?

Including:

1. Level of education
2. Test scores
3. Low levels of high school dropouts
4. Low infant mortality
5. low rates of the uninsured
6. low crime
7. high income levels
8. high literacy rates
9. high levels of political awareness

i could go on and on here.

No one comments on the states that have overall low quality of life:

West Virginia
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
Arkansas
Louisiana
South Georgia
and perhaps Oklahoma.

However, even in Texas, North Carolina and Florida,

i've always been alarmed by

1. The standard of education
2. High crime rates
3. High rates of poverty
4. Low levels of tolerance for people who are different (ethnicity, sexual preference, lifestyle, religion, etc)
5. Higher levels of natural disasters and natural annoyances (pests, insects, living creatures)

I just have to add my 2 cents about some of these aspects.

I have to admit though, perhaps the cities of Atlanta, Dallas and Houston may have a better overall lifestyle vs

Chicago (lower cost of living, more pleasant overall evironment, more jobs0

or STL/Cleveland etc (more to do than STL/Cleveland, more diverse city & overall metro market)

I really can't consider Miami an improvement due to its low levels of income, low levels of education, high cost of living and high levels of crime.

M. Brown

December 12th, 2004, 08:02 AM

Wow NH is killin' it in those Maps. Especially the patents one. Its all becuase of Dean Kamen

IHateBirds

December 12th, 2004, 05:19 PM

Lol. It's YOUR reasoning of measuring worth by population density. Using YOUR reasoning, the South's cities are worthless compared to the Midwest's. This website is obviously about cities, you don't see too many skyscapers in rural areas.

Oh my god, why do you feel compelled to put words in my mouth, or anything in my mouth for that matter? Your attempt to twist things around for sake of winning a pissing contest is flawed and very obvious, so stop.

I CAN'T WAIT until my next business trip to Rochester! I definitely want to meet Toggie and twincities just to hang out... but you and I have GOT to meet--I know we would have a lot of fun, at least I know I would!

The anti-cheesehead

December 12th, 2004, 05:54 PM

Oh my god, why do you feel compelled to put words in my mouth, or anything in my mouth for that matter? Your attempt to twist things around for sake of winning a pissing contest is flawed and very obvious, so stop.

How is it flawed? Is this not what you said:

Both the midwest and south are generally useless and undeveloped. Minus the handful of actual metropolitan areas, what's the population density of most of the midwest and south? Like 1 person per sq mile or less?

The midwest and south are useless because they are undeveloped and lack population density. That is your point.

I took your logic a step further and applied it to the cities of the south and midwest, since this is a comparison thread, and we can't have these two regions being equally worthless. Somebody has to win. That, and the fact that this website is about cities, not rural areas. In terms of population density, since the rural areas aren't that much different, the cities are the tie breaker. Get it?

ralex231

December 12th, 2004, 05:59 PM

http://img49.exs.cx/img49/15/map9ht.jpg

it looks like to me the south has a higher population density than midwest.

texasboy

December 12th, 2004, 06:02 PM

^^^ Not really. It is a tie.

ralex231

December 12th, 2004, 06:28 PM

maybe

JivecitySTL

December 12th, 2004, 06:48 PM

This is probably the most accurate:

http://www.pbase.com/jivecity/image/22335071.jpg

The anti-cheesehead

December 12th, 2004, 06:59 PM

This is probably the most accurate:

http://www.pbase.com/jivecity/image/22335071.jpg

DAMN. Look at those Great Lakes.

streetscapeer

December 12th, 2004, 07:45 PM

The South for me!.....the tone of the Midwest is sort of monotonous to me (IMO)

The beauty is umparalelled, IMO

http://img130.exs.cx/img130/7483/charleston0oe.jpg

http://img130.exs.cx/img130/6126/charleston27fl.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/kleclerc4/skyline2.jpg

IHateBirds

December 12th, 2004, 08:21 PM

The midwest and south are useless because they are undeveloped and lack population density. That is your point.

For all the shit talking that you have done in regards to intelligence and education, you have yet to exemplify anything that would justify such comments... unless of course you're just here to have fun like me.

Was my first sentence just too much for you to handle? I would make another midwest-education/literacy joke, but it would be too easy and it's pretty much worn out now.

I'm in awe that you quoted my first sentence, then turned around and changed the meaning all in the same post. Since when does "generally useless and undeveloped" mean "useless because they are undeveloped"?? :D

It must be the copious quantity of Radon spewing up from the tenth level of hell beneath your feet. You know, that stuff will sneak up on you, be on alert!
:laugh:

since this is a comparison thread, and we can't have these two regions being equally worthless. Somebody has to win.

Who says? You? Awww poor baby... Do you prefer breast milk or formula?
Try talking to a snow drift, I'm almost certain that it cares more than I do.

That, and the fact that this website is about cities, not rural areas. In terms of population density, since the rural areas aren't that much different, the cities are the tie breaker. Get it?

You've said that already and I really don't give two shits what you think this website is about. I think this website is about ways to make you run your mouth for my entertainment. Get it?

How about this--my opinion on the cities... I think the south and midwest have equally generic cities. Taken as a whole, I can't think of anything that really stands out making one or the other better or worse. Minneapolis is no more special than Tampa. Sure each place has its perks and unique qualities, but at the end of the day they reach the same point, more or less.

I'm excluding Chicago since I consider it to be a truly world class city--in the same league as NYC and LA, and it certainly does not fit the model seen by other midwest cities (similar to how NYC and LA are completely different from the other cities in their respective regions). If anyone has a problem with that, they can take it up with me personally if they desire.

STLgasm

December 12th, 2004, 08:28 PM

I just have to add my 2 cents about some of these aspects.

I have to admit though, perhaps the cities of Atlanta, Dallas and Houston may have a better overall lifestyle vs

STL/Cleveland etc (more to do than STL/Cleveland, more diverse city & overall metro market)

I COMPLETELY disagree! More to do??? Give me a break! Houston, Dallas and Atlanta don't have nearly the quality or quantity of museums, historic districts or cultural institutions of Cleveland or St. Louis! Just the other day, I met a couple at a cafe here in St. Louis-- the girl was from Dallas and her boyfriend was from France. She had gone to school at Wash. U. in St. Louis, and she said she wanted to show her boyfriend around St. Louis because "there's so much more to do and see in here than in Dallas."

As far as diversity, that's debatable. Cleveland and St. Louis have both clung to their old world ethnic enclaves as well as welcoming new immigrants from around the world. Dallas may have more new immigrants, but are there really any discernable cohesive, walkable ethnic neighborhoods that you would find in Cleveland and St. Louis (besides of course Hispanic districts)?

Dallas may be dynamic and growing, but if character and charm is what you're looking for, head north my friend...