Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Watch this one. They don't like others giving their opinion. I have tried to explain Louisville, and so have residents of Louisville, but they just don't get it.
I consider it a Southern city, but you can't miss the obvious Midwestern influences, especially since its metro area actually extends into neighboring Indiana, a Midwestern state. I certainly wouldn't call it a "full blown Southern city" in the way a city like Birmingham is considered to be.
Yep; other than the qualification of being the biggest cities in their respective states, the similarities laid between Baltimore and Louisville laid out by the OP fit Louisville and Richmond better.
Louisville isn't "full blown Southern;" it has a substantial amount of Midwestern influence. How can it directly border the Midwest and not?
Ok fine, I'll give you it has Midwestern influences, but it is more Southern than it is Midwestern.
Watch this one. They don't like others giving their opinion. I have tried to explain Louisville, and so have residents of Louisville, but they just don't get it.
You don't like others giving opinions of Cleveland contrary to your own, even if they have been visiting that city for 30 years. You poke fun at people who give other opinions that are different from your's. THe only thing you've tried to explain is that Louisville is as Midwestern as it is Southern...which is a flat out lie. Residents of that city HAVE said it is Southern...look up other threads on the topic unless you're too lazy. Your topic is not the definitive winner. It addressed the issue of Indianapolis being more like Louisville than Minneapolis, not that Louisville is a Midwestern city. And obviously none of the people who replied to your topic understood culture, demographics, or linguistics, or even overall history between the two cities. Nothing is comparable. Distance is not everything. You just don't get it....Detroit and Cleveland are closer to Louisville than Minneapolis, yet I don't hear you crying out Louisville is more like those two than Minneapolis is. Culture, demographics, linguistics...all of which are Southern for Louisville, obviously the majority of people do not have any common sense on here. How much more Southern does it get than bourbon and the Kentucky Derby? Have you ever heard an old timer from Louisville speak? Tell me that's not a Southern accent. 1 in 5 Louisvillians are Southern Baptist. It's a Bible Belt city. Louisville is not, I repeat, not a Midwestern city. From a modern standpoint, it doesn't have much in common with St. Louis or Cincinnati besides being on a river, let alone Indianapolis at all from a modern standpoint other than that it sits on a river (Indy is on the White River), has a moderate-sized Catholic population (although not nearly as big as the latter three), and is named after King Louis. Going there was like visiting another region of the country, which for all intents and purposes it is. I'll revise my statement and say Louisville is Southern with Midwestern influences, but that's as far as I'm going. Louisville may have Midwestern influences, but it belongs with Nashville and Memphis before Cincinnati and Indianapolis IMO. Whatever. Quit following me around and find something else to do with your life.
I consider it a Southern city, but you can't miss the obvious Midwestern influences, especially since its metro area actually extends into neighboring Indiana, a Midwestern state. I certainly wouldn't call it a "full blown Southern city" in the way a city like Birmingham is considered to be.
Right. But we are focusing on a few key words that you yourself caught. Full-blown Southern city is not correct wording at all for Louisville. And anyone who has even been there for 30 minutes would not use those words.
Not to get involved with the spat above....but this statement is one of the odder I've seen in these threads..
"Louisville may have Midwestern influences, but it belongs with Nashville and Memphis before Cincinnati"
Louisville and Cincinnati have quite a bit in common....you know, what with the whole Ohio river thing. They both exhibit cultures that blend the Midwest with South. their histories and modern economies are actually quite intertwined.
Not to get involved with the spat above....but this statement is one of the odder I've seen in these threads..
"Louisville may have Midwestern influences, but it belongs with Nashville and Memphis before Cincinnati"
Louisville and Cincinnati have quite a bit in common....you know, what with the whole Ohio river thing. They both exhibit cultures that blend the Midwest with South. their histories and modern economies are actually quite intertwined.
I found that statement incorrect as well. Louisville is quite a bit different in culture and feel of Nashville and especially Memphis. It has much more in common with Cincinnati in look, feel, culture, and even industrialization. Louisville's urban grid is larger and more developed, and definitely more rust belt. Yes, I understand Louisville and Baltimore are classified as southern cities in the census bureau, but like Memphis? I'm not buying it.
As a recent resident of Louisville I'd have to say it definitely has blends of both the south and the midwest. I would think a person who would claim it's more like Memphis than Cincinatti or Indy, is someone who's never experienced it first hand and is going off of the popular group think stereotype mentality: "Kentucky is classified as southern, therefore for all things Kentuckian are southern." But this is C-D and the internet's version of Rome for group thinking stereo typing mentalities.
Not to get involved with the spat above....but this statement is one of the odder I've seen in these threads..
"Louisville may have Midwestern influences, but it belongs with Nashville and Memphis before Cincinnati"
Louisville and Cincinnati have quite a bit in common....you know, what with the whole Ohio river thing. They both exhibit cultures that blend the Midwest with South. their histories and modern economies are actually quite intertwined.
Elaborate on quite a bit in common. All they have in common today is they sit on the Ohio River. Historically yes they may have things in common, but from a modern standpoint, they are demographically, linguistically, and culturally different. Cincinnati is Midwestern with Southern influences, Louisville is Southern with Midwestern influences.
Btw, linguistic maps from the University of Pennsylvania prove my above points. If Cincinnati and Louisville are twin cities, then Pittsburgh must also be Louisville's twin since it also sits on the Ohio River...yeah right. Cincinnati is 90 miles northeast of Louisville, that is enough for a cultural change to take place. St. Louis is 100 miles north of Cape Girardeau and the difference between them is night and day. If Cincinnati and Louisville are twins, so are Louisville and Richmond. I would even put Cincinnati and St. Louis in with Pittsburgh before Louisville. Many people would and do. Bottomline, Cincinnati has more in common with Louisville and St. Louis from a cultural, linguistical, and demographic standpoint than it does with Louisville. And if I'm a broken record, sorry if the truth hurts.
Last edited by mrfgsn; 10-22-2014 at 10:01 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
