I am curious about both of these cities. I would love different perspectives on the differences and general flavor of both. thanks for your help!

Well--
Louisville (approx 1.4 million CSA)
Louisville City pop. 702,000
Home of: Kentucky Derby, Churchill Downs, a top 10 Convention City,waterfront park, city of parks, many festivals, great neighborhoods and urban character, and much more.

Lexington (approx 0.7 million CSA)
Lexington City pop. 270,000
Home of: Keenland Racetrack, University of Kentucky, 2010 word horse games(somethin like that..lol), rolling hilly terrain with horse farms, and much more.

Both cities hold great character and are both very unique, though Louisville is twice the size of Lexington which does make a big difference but both are very pleasant & progressive.

JTS LOU summed it up pretty well.

For the overall urban experience Louisville overshadows Lexington hands down. Their downtown is larger and taller. (they are afterall the larger city.) Even outside of downtown areas like Bardstown Road (the area around Ear-Ecstacy) has a very urban feel to it. There ar others but I'll let a Louisville forumer cover them because I'll leave some out.

Lexington has a linear skyline boxed in by historic neighborhoods. Areas outside of downtown that have an urban feel are Chevy Chase and parts of UK's campus.

Both cities have taken measures to curb sprawl, both cities have equine based attractions, both cities have diverse economies.

Lexington has a transit system that is growing very aggressively. I dont know that much about Louisville's transit system.

Louisvilles downtown is undergoing a huge transformation and pushing higher with projects like RPP and Museum Plaza. Lexington's growth downtown has mostly come in the form of low and mid-rise european style buildings in the historic neighborhoods around downtown.

I'm leaving out for the sake of not spending all day typing but both a great cities.

Lexington merged city-county governments a long time ago, and doesn't have the patchwork of 6th class cities that exist in Louisville, whose merger is of more recent vintage. One of the big reasons Louisville's merger went through this time is that Lexington was going to pass Louisville to become Kentucky's largest "city".

Louisville is more of a big city than Lexington is, but Lex is growing faster, has the state's premier university, and is probably better received in other parts of the state.

Lexington merged city-county governments a long time ago, and doesn't have the patchwork of 6th class cities that exist in Louisville, whose merger is of more recent vintage. One of the big reasons Louisville's merger went through this time is that Lexington was going to pass Louisville to become Kentucky's largest "city".

Louisville is more of a big city than Lexington is, but Lex is growing faster, has the state's premier university, and is probably better received in other parts of the state.

are you talkin about growing faster on the percentage side or just pure numbers. Louisville has added 60,000 people since 2000 to the metro.. i dunno how much Lex has added but i dont think that much..i dunno though. Im not sayin they cant add that much because they can.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b200/eweezerinc/lexy2.jpg

http://governor.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D7DDE69E-5FBF-46B3-AD71-1ECA1764DCB1/0/Skyline_wArena.jpg

Man, the more i see Museum Plaza...the more i hate that monstrosity. Louisville deserved a better building than that thing, but then again i prefer classic architecture instead of this new age organic looking crap.

^^ Consider this. There are several renderings I've seen for towers that I HATED. But when i saw the completed project I loved the tower. This is not to say i dont like musuem plaza, i do. Just saying.

that rendering isn't updated either.

My only comment to someone saying they prefer "classic" architecture is GET OUT OF THE PAST. I love "classic" architecture too, but to simply continue to copy it because it's "pretty" is ridiculous.

Architecture is constantly evolving. The buildings were cherish today were at one time new, daring, and pushed the envelope with the people of that era - same as our buildings do today.

Building nothing but copies of our grandparents "classic architecture" debases their acheivements, and stymies our own growth. We've got to cherish the past, while building our current age...and building copies does neither.

The Shermerhorn (sp?) Symphony Hall in Nashville is a beautiful building built in the classical sense. However, if Sydney, Australia had built their Opera house in the same fashion as Nashville, no one outside of Australia would even know they have an Opera House. Instead, it's one of the most recognizable structures in the world. The point is, a "classical" building will be beautiful, functional, and make anyone proud to have it. But don't expect anyone outside of your region to take notice of it. However, a building with architecture that is innovative and different can truly become a classic. And there in lies the difference.

The Shermerhorn (sp?) Symphony Hall in Nashville is a beautiful building built in the classical sense. However, if Sydney, Australia had built their Opera house in the same fashion as Nashville, no one outside of Australia would even know they have an Opera House. Instead, it's one of the most recognizable structures in the world. The point is, a "classical" building will be beautiful, functional, and make anyone proud to have it. But don't expect anyone outside of your region to take notice of it. However, a building with architecture that is innovative and different can truly become a classic. And there in lies the difference.

I'm not sure if that's a slap in the face of the Symphony Hall here, or a compliment (Help me understand this! LOL!). I mean, I field about five emails a day asking for usage rights on pictures that I have of the Symphony Hall. Most emails aren't even from the continental US too. I suppose that means something to someone, but I digress.

But to compare MP with the Symphony Hall is downright disrespectful in regards to the Symphony Hall here. There not even in the same league.

I'm not sure if that's a slap in the face of the Symphony Hall here, or a compliment (Help me understand this! LOL!). I mean, I field about five emails a day asking for usage rights on pictures that I have of the Symphony Hall. Most emails aren't even from the continental US too. I suppose that means something to someone, but I digress.

But to compare MP with the Symphony Hall is downright disrespectful in regards to the Symphony Hall here. There not even in the same league.

It wasn't a slap in the face or a compliment. It wasn't even being compared to MP. It was being compared to Sydney's Opera House. I don't know what else to say.

In regards to MP and the Shermerhorn, there is little chance the Symphony Hall will be as known, studied, visited, etc. as MP. It's what you get when you have a design as challenging as MP. You have praise and criticism, and fame for both views.

Lexy, I've not known you to be THIS touchy. :tongue2:
He was talking in terms of style and progressive architecture vs recreating more classic styles. Nashville's Symphony hall is GORGEOUS, and extremely well done. No doubt. But its not going to get recognized by people around the world in 20 years the way people recognize the Sydney Opera House. No comment on the buildings themselves; merely New vs Old.

I too would like to know the differences. I have been to Louisville many, many times, but I have only driven by Lexington on my way to Florida. Louisville has a good vibe about it, especially along Bardstown Road.

Lexington may very well have a CSA of 0.7 million, but it certainly doesn't feel like it. Take it from someone who lived there for 4 years. It feels more like a CSA of 0.5 million, at most. All in all, it's a great place to live, however. The Ville has a much larger, much more urban feel. But it also has a dirtier, more worn out appearance in many parts of the city. On the plus side, Louisville far surpasses Lexington in big-city attractions (think Six Flags, downtown AAA baseball team, shopping, non-chain dining, etc.) and many say it also has more character because it has been a substantial population center for a longer period of time. Driving around Lexington, one gets the impression that it went from small town to small city within the last 30 years. Indeed, that's essentially the case. When my parents were in college at UK around 1970'ish, the "farthest out" traffic light in town was on Nicholasville Rd. around Circuit City. Needless to say, when I was in college from 2000-2004, the dense population went WAY beyond that.

I'm not sure if that's a slap in the face of the Symphony Hall here, or a compliment (Help me understand this! LOL!). I mean, I field about five emails a day asking for usage rights on pictures that I have of the Symphony Hall. Most emails aren't even from the continental US too. I suppose that means something to someone, but I digress.

But to compare MP with the Symphony Hall is downright disrespectful in regards to the Symphony Hall here. There not even in the same league.

You do realize that the same firm that designed Nashville's Symphony Hall is building a very similar structure in the Indianapolis suburb of Carmel, right?

Just change a set back or two here, add or remove a decorative roof there, and presto-chango! AN ALL NEW BUILDING! YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL THEY'RE FROM THE SAME PEOPLE!:ohno:

And seriously, don't take it as an attack agains either Carmel or Nashville - I simply think that ALL Americans are being fed this line of BS that their city is getting some new and improved building, which happens to be a copy of an original somewhere far away in Europe, and that the company which designed it isn't going to peddle some half-warmed over similar design on another unsuspecting city. Another case and point is hotels - The new Nashville Intercontinental is almost an exact replica of the plans for a now defunct Indianapolis plan. And Louisville has an exact replica of some Marriott commie-slab from Indianapolis too.

But seriously, look for yourself. There are striking resemblances. The moment I looked up pictures of the Nashville Hall I immediately thought, "Hey, isn't that just like the one they're building in Carmel?" And I would argue that this not a good thing for either Carmel OR Nashville.

Carmel, Indiana:
http://cmsimg.indystar.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Dato=20070213&Kategori=LOCAL010103&Lopenr=702130320&Ref=AR&Q=80&MaxW=500&MaxH=400&Site=BG&Q=80&Border=0&Title=0

Nashville, Tennessee
http://classicist.blogs.com/weblog/images/Schwarz_exterior.jpg

I'd also echo that Lexington feels tiny. Definitely a small town mentality no matter what the growth is like. IMHO the growth is disgusting, chain everything, cookie cutter burbs, etc.

I've never lived in Louisville but I have spent a lot of time there. Bardstown Rd. is a gem and the Highlands is by far my favorite neighborhood in KY.

Are you thinking about relocating or just curious?

My only comment to someone saying they prefer "classic" architecture is GET OUT OF THE PAST. I love "classic" architecture too, but to simply continue to copy it because it's "pretty" is ridiculous.

Architecture is constantly evolving. The buildings were cherish today were at one time new, daring, and pushed the envelope with the people of that era - same as our buildings do today.

Building nothing but copies of our grandparents "classic architecture" debases their acheivements, and stymies our own growth. We've got to cherish the past, while building our current age...and building copies does neither.

Perhaps i like living in the past. :) Anyways, I don't think prefering or designing a building with classic architecture means every structure has to be a copy cat. I like a lot of modern buildings that utilize classic architecture techniques...but i sure as hell don't like a skyscraper that looks like it's built on stilts.

You know, i would compare it to classic cars...do you see people cherishing a timeless kia rio, honda civic, or ford taurus? HELL NO, but people will give an arm and a leg for classic cars like an old camaro, mustang, or a 50's chevy. Classic cars, just like classic buildings, had character and very appealing...the designers then used imagination and studied historic architecture.

Straight to the point, MP looks like a bunch of boxes just thrown together to make one of the ugliest skyscrapers i've ever seen. My 6 month old daughter could have designed that with her duplo building blocks. It has no character and certainly not appealing in anyway. The architect IMO didn't have a vivid imagination, it looks like something a child designed in a crayon drawing or using duplo blocks.

This is my opinion, i'm entitled to it. If you don't like it or agree, then fine, but don't tell me i "HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE PAST". Thank you and have a nice day. :)

haha! Good post with EXCELLENT analogies!

Jake, that's actually not the Carmel Performing Arts Center. It's a community theater.

I haven't seen a good jpg to link to of the PAC, but you can go to the mayor's 2006 state of the city speech and see slide 45 for a rendering:

http://www.ci.carmel.in.us/government/Mayor.PDF/2006%20State%20of%20the%20City.pdf

I stand corrected that the building is the Carmel Arts Performing Arts Center - However, that still is a building that is going up in Carmel, and they do look very very similar.

And even after looking at the rendering of the Carmel Performing Center - I stand by the premise of the argument - that cities are getting carbon copies of each others projects. The Carmel Performing Arts Center still has a lot of the same properties as the building in Nashville. I would paste the rendering that you provided, but it won't let me.

Here ya go Jake:

http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n127/WeezerChips/PAC.jpg

Thank You - ;)

Don't forget, a lot of those modern projects are copycat too.

The Disney center in LA, the band shell in Chicago, and several other buildings are now basically clones of Gehry's Bilbao Museum.

The Calatrava Chicago Spire is a version of his Twisting Torso.

Etc.

The big difference between Louisville and Lexington (other than size and being on a river) is that Louisville was for many years an industrial, working class city, which means it has lots of old blue collar neighborhoods and factory areas.

Lexington was never very industrial, so the city was built out diffferently, without extensive working class areas and factory districts. There is also a very different pattern to the black neighborhoods in Lexington compared to Louisville. Lexington also has old residential neighborhoods going right up to and blending into downtown, which Louisville does not have, being surrounded by a lot of urban renewal stuff.

Lexington doesn't have any real suburbs with their own identity, while Louisville has quite a bit of that.

probably the biggest difference was the Lexington Urban Service Area boundary meant there was a limit to suburban sprawl around Lex (within Fayette County). So there was a distinct line where development just stopped.

I think one thing to note is that both cities have deep roots in horse racing. While Louisville has perhaps the more famous track, and certainly the bigger race(KY Derby), Lexington's foundation rests a lot more than Louisville's on the industry, and has a greater lagacy in the industry.

The big difference between Louisville and Lexington (other than size and being on a river) is that Louisville was for many years an industrial, working class city, which means it has lots of old blue collar neighborhoods and factory areas.

Lexington was never very industrial, so the city was built out diffferently, without extensive working class areas and factory districts. There is also a very different pattern to the black neighborhoods in Lexington compared to Louisville. Lexington also has old residential neighborhoods going right up to and blending into downtown, which Louisville does not have, being surrounded by a lot of urban renewal stuff.

Lexington doesn't have any real suburbs with their own identity, while Louisville has quite a bit of that.


Good post and I agree totally. Except, I would say that Georgetown, Versailles, and Nicholasville are three suburbs that carry their own identity. And for all intensive purposes, they are suburbs by definition. you could also say even Richmond to a certain degree, but lesser than the three above.

Yes, I am interested in a medium sized city in the southeast that has some culture, acceptance of variety where liberal people can be found easily-even if it's not the majority, and at the same time holds onto the best of its traditions (for Kentucky that would be bluegrass music and small batch bourbon in my book).

girlfriend in a comma i know....it's serious...Let me, get my hands on your mammary glands, and let me put your head in the conjugal bed...

Good post and I agree totally. Except, I would say that Georgetown, Versailles, and Nicholasville are three suburbs that carry their own identity. And for all intensive purposes, they are suburbs by definition. you could also say even Richmond to a certain degree, but lesser than the three above.

I'd also agree that Lexington's suburbs don't have much of an identity. Even if G-town, Versailles, and Nicholasville are technically "suburbs," Lexington doesn't seem big enough to have suburbs as far from downtown as those places are. To me, Lexington's true suburbs are places like Hamburg/Andover, Tates Creek / Man'o'war, etc. Basically just residential areas that are directly connected to Lexington.

However, there are certainly a lot of folks who commute everyday from those cities into Lexington. If you include the farther-out towns, then G-town and Versailles are very nice places. They have a great deal of character and charm. Nicholasville, on the other hand, never did anything for me. It seems so dry. Richmond can at least draw some character from EKU.

p.s. Back to the original question...Lexington truly is a beautiful city. When flying into the Bluegrass airport, you get a true sense of how rural it is. You can also catch some great views of the expansive horse farms only a few minutes from downtown. Lexington is the prettier city, IMO. Louisville is much larger and can boast a lot more city-specific character....it's just not as pretty. Once again--only one man's opinion.

p.s. Back to the original question...Lexington truly is a beautiful city. When flying into the Bluegrass airport, you get a true sense of how rural it is. You can also catch some great views of the expansive horse farms only a few minutes from downtown. Lexington is the prettier city, IMO. Louisville is much larger and can boast a lot more city-specific character....it's just not as pretty. Once again--only one man's opinion.

I think Lexington is pretty in a bucolic sense. But, I don't really enjoy the streetscapes there as much as Louisville. The hills and horse farms are gorgeous. But, to me, there is nothing prettier than taking a drive through Cherokee Park in the Fall, or riding up River Road. Louisville has a bunch of canopied streets, which is one of my favorite features. So, as far as "urban" beauty, if you will, I much prefer Louisville.

Yes, I am interested in a medium sized city in the southeast that has some culture, acceptance of variety where liberal people can be found easily-even if it's not the majority, and at the same time holds onto the best of its traditions (for Kentucky that would be bluegrass music and small batch bourbon in my book).

girlfriend in a comma i know....it's serious...Let me, get my hands on your mammary glands, and let me put your head in the conjugal bed...
e
Well, I would suggest Louisville before Lexington for somebody looking for those characteristics. If you need to stay in the South East region, you may also want to take a look at Asheville, NC and Chattanooga, TN. Both are in beautiful settings and offer some of what you are looking for on a larger scale. If outdoor activities are of high importance to you they both rock.

I've spent a fair bit of time in all of them, if you have any questions send me a PM. Good luck with your search.

Well, I would suggest Louisville before Lexington for somebody looking for those characteristics. If you need to stay in the South East region, you may also wan't to tak a look at Asheville, NC and Chattanooga, TN. Both are in beautiful settings and offer some of what you are looking for on a larger scale. If outdoor activities are of high importance to you they both rock.

I've spent a fair bit of time in all of them, if you have any questions send me a PM. Good luck with your search.

u think ashville or chattanooga have more culture than louisville? i would be very surprised since they are much smaller but maybe u can elaborate i hav enever been to these towns?

Well, I would suggest Louisville before Lexington for somebody looking for those characteristics. If you need to stay in the South East region, you may also wan't to tak a look at Asheville, NC and Chattanooga, TN. Both are in beautiful settings and offer some of what you are looking for on a larger scale. If outdoor activities are of high importance to you they both rock.

I've spent a fair bit of time in all of them, if you have any questions send me a PM. Good luck with your search.
Uh, larger as in more than what Louisville has to offer? Please, DO elaborate.

No, I was suggesting them as possible alternatives in the South East. Please, don't get all Louisville fanboy on me. I like Louisville, if you read my previous posts you would see that I said IMHO it was a much better choice for him than Lexington.

But lets be real, Asheville, NC can't be touched for a small to mid sized city in the south east that is progressive. More to do is very relative to what somebody is looking for. If you are not into "mainstream" stuff Asheville is hard to beat. I've never seen a more all organic, all vegetarian, green, anti corporate, bicycle friendly, outdoorsy place anywhere near it's size.