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.
The music city star is an epic failure. It should have been built between Nashville and Mufreesboro, not Lebanon.
Of course it should have. But it was built on a barely used section of freight track owned by a small railroad (Nashville & Eastern) which was willing to lease the track.
Nashville to Murfreesboro would require either laying 30 miles of new track and acquiring land, or sharing track with CSX....but the CSX line is at near 100% capacity and they have not been open to any sort of compromise whatsoever.
Again, there is a reason they built the first line to Lebanon. $$$.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948
Nashville cannot and will not support any form of mass transit anytime in the next two decades. It totally lacks the density to do it. What I like about it is that it shows that Nashville is a progressive city and wants to "play with the big boys."
I disagree with that statement. While Nashville is spread out overall, it is generally pretty dense along its corridors. And one thing that would be nice if we could ever work with CSX to share their tracks (I think we would have to double and triple track it for them to get them to play ball) is that their lines don't run along the edge of the suburbs, but right through the middle of them. There wouldn't be the problem of fighting commuting traffic trying to get to the interstate in order to park and ride.
The other thing that is needed is effective distribution once commuters arrive in town. Since there are a lot of jobs down the Vandy/West End corridor, there needs to be more than a direct shuttle to get them there. This is what the BRT was supposed to help with...we'll see what the next proposal is.
Ok, so "hip" is a little subjective right? But how about LGBTs? Do they prefer lame, backwards cities? Or do they generally choose to live in hip, artsy, foodie, progressive cities? I think anyone with sense would admit LGBTs live in hip cities. Louisville has the 11th most LGBTs in the USA among major metros at 4.5% of its population being LGBT. San Fran is only 6.2 and tops the list. The well identified hipster havens of Portland and Austin? 5.4 and 5.3 percent, respectively.
True, Louisville may not be Austin, but it is the closest thing in this part of the country, and that is why I am such a big fan of the city.
Ok, so Louisville is a "hip, artsy, foodie, progressive cities" because of a 4.5% rate of LGBT residents; and Indianapolis is one of the "lame, backwards cities" because it comes in 0.3% behind Louisville at 4.2%?
Doing the math, 4.5% of metro Louisville (1,269,702 as of 2010) is 57136 people.
Applying that same math, 4.2% of metro Indianapolis (1,887,877 as of 2010) is 79290 people.
Wait, you are telling me using the data you provided there are actually more LGBT people in metro-Indy than Louisville. Therefore, based on what you said, I can deduce that Indianapolis is "hip" enough to have more LGBT individuals than Louisville.
*edit: Just so the peanut gallery is clear, I am not making any claim that any one city is actually "hip" or not "hip." This is meant as more of an ode to the over the top language being used anytime a small gap might exist. I am 0.3% ahead, which means I am blowing your backwards city out of the water. Look out Chicago, we are coming for you.
Last edited by Toxic Toast; 09-28-2015 at 02:03 PM..
That Forbes article did not rank Indy as a top travel destination. It was simply about a weekend trip there...again, Indy is rarely if ever ranked a top travel destination. Louisville is REGULARLY ranked a top travel destination. Discount it if you must, but it is a FACT. The reason Indy has more annual tourists is directly related to the convention business, which should be bolstered when Louisville's outdated facilities are revamped by 2018. Every major city gets leisure travelrs; my point is that is not what the majority of visitors to Indy are there for.
The hip thing is not just my "opinion." It is the opinion of the majority of people who visit Louisville off these boards. It's ok to throw the city a bone. Like I said, google Louisville "hip city" and see how many hits you get.
Ok, so "hip" is a little subjective right? But how about LGBTs? Do they prefer lame, backwards cities? Or do they generally choose to live in hip, artsy, foodie, progressive cities? I think anyone with sense would admit LGBTs live in hip cities. Louisville has the 11th most LGBTs in the USA among major metros at 4.5% of its population being LGBT. San Fran is only 6.2 and tops the list. The well identified hipster havens of Portland and Austin? 5.4 and 5.3 percent, respectively.
True, Louisville may not be Austin, but it is the closest thing in this part of the country, and that is why I am such a big fan of the city.
Everyone must wonder, Peter, if you are such a fan of Louisville, why is its metro 1.3 million and not 5 million if its that "cool?" There's lots of reasons, but among them are some its problems, mainly the state of KY is rural and agrarian outside the city and the politics support that....for every dollar the city pays in taxes the state only gives the city back 66 cents. Louisville is business friendly; the state of KY is not. So Louisville continues to attract low wage distribution jobs instead of the abundance of copororation relocations it should be attracting. And the area's lower educational attainment and issues with the poor are a weight on it....but the emerging and fast growing hipster class in Louisville...it has been fun to watch it explode over the last few years and I see no end in sight. Louisville's unemployment rate of 4.4% is currently among the lower in the US and it is attracting jobs in droves lately.
On the other hand, every single person I have brought to Louisville be it national or international friends were so surprised (in a good way) by what I show them in Louisville. The universal opinion was "This is not what I expected."
Wrong. Majority to Indy are not there for conventions. Keep telling yourself that won't make it true. Lou convention probably won't catch Indy anytime soon. Indy is just in an entirely different league. Adding hotels, let alone a 600 room hotel in a market with 62% occupancy rate generally doesn't bode well. That's 62% occupancy for 3800 downtown rooms compared to 73% rate for 7200 rooms in downtown Indy. Do the math. 600 rooms still isn't a signature hotel which is 1k plus rooms. That's a requirement for certain conventions. The powers that be are already speculating expanding icc yet again so 2018 doesn't really strike fear in the indiana capitol as it will still be larger, still have better and more accommodations than Lou.
So gay = more progressive. Uh OK. You do realize there are plenty of conservative gays. Not all are flambouyant.
Ok, so Louisville is a "hip, artsy, foodie, progressive cities" because of a 4.5% rate of LGBT residents; and Indianapolis is one of the "lame, backwards cities" because it comes in 0.3% behind Louisville at 4.2%?
Doing the math, 4.5% of metro Louisville (1,269,702 as of 2010) is 57136 people.
Applying that same math, 4.2% of metro Indianapolis (1,887,877 as of 2010) is 79290 people.
Wait, you are telling me using the data you provided there are actually more LGBT people in metro-Indy than Louisville. Therefore, based on what you said, I can deduce that Indianapolis is "hip" enough to have more LGBT individuals than Louisville.
*edit: Just so the peanut gallery is clear, I am not making any claim that any one city is actually "hip" or not "hip." This is meant as more of an ode to the over the top language being used anytime a small gap might exist. I am 0.3% ahead, which means I am blowing your backwards city out of the water. Look out Chicago, we are coming for you.
The 0.3% IS substantial:
Metropolitan areas with the highest rates of L.G.B.T. residents
San Francisco 6.2%
Portland, Ore. 5.4%
Austin, Tex. 5.3%
New Orleans 5.1%
Boston 4.8%
Seattle 4.8%
Salt Lake City 4.7%
Denver 4.6%
Hartford 4.6%
Los Angeles 4.6%
Louisville, Ky. 4.5%
Providence, R.I. 4.4%
Virginia Beach 4.4%
Columbus, Ohio 4.3%
Jacksonville 4.3%
These cities are all considered hip, with the possible exception of Jacksonville. Louisville is 0.1% away from LA and Denver..but that is a world of difference.
Search these boards. No one considers Indy a cool city except the Indy homers.
Why has Google Fiber chosen KC, Nashville, and Louisivlle for Gigabyte internet and not Indy? Again, not a hip city. Fiber will only come to cool kid cities and those that are up and coming:
Wrong. Majority to Indy are not there for conventions. Keep telling yourself that won't make it true. Lou convention probably won't catch Indy anytime soon. Indy is just in an entirely different league. Adding hotels, let alone a 600 room hotel in a market with 62% occupancy rate generally doesn't bode well. That's 62% occupancy for 3800 downtown rooms compared to 73% rate for 7200 rooms in downtown Indy. Do the math. 600 rooms still isn't a signature hotel which is 1k plus rooms. That's a requirement for certain conventions. The powers that be are already speculating expanding icc yet again so 2018 doesn't really strike fear in the indiana capitol as it will still be larger, still have better and more accommodations than Lou.
So gay = more progressive. Uh OK. You do realize there are plenty of conservative gays. Not all are flambouyant.
The 600 is in one hotel announced. There are at least 7 other hotels in DOWNTOWN alone proposed or under construction. A second 600 room facility should break ground at the convention center at the fairgrounds. You simply just do not have any idea about anything going on in Louisville so speak about what you know about.
I am not sure where you are getting 3800 rooms for downtown Louisville, but there are lots more than that. Louisville is about to emerge as a major player all while you have no idea what is going on there. I recently moved back to the area permanently , and even I am impressed with the growth.
The 600 is in one hotel announced. There are at least 7 other hotels in DOWNTOWN alone proposed or under construction. A second 600 room facility should break ground at the convention center at the fairgrounds. You simply just do not have any idea about anything going on in Louisville so speak about what you know about.
I am not sure where you are getting 3800 rooms for downtown Louisville, but there are lots more than that. Louisville is about to emerge as a major player all while you have no idea what is going on there. I recently moved back to the area permanently , and even I am impressed with the growth.
Wdrb ran an article about new hotels in Lou coming online. 3800 hotells with another 1200 coming online including the omni. I just didn't mention the smaller ones. It's a 62% occupancy rate for Lou which many consider low especially with a 600 room coming online. It's not difficult to find this information. Facts matter and those are the facts.
Expo center is 1.2 million sq ft but sits down i-65. Icc is 1.3 and in the thick of it. Better location surrounded by better amenities. And if Indy is 16th, Lou is NOT top 10.
Lou has a lot of things going on. Well guess what, so does everyone else. Cbus, Cleveland, stl, Denver, Indy, etc. Everyone is building in order to compete. Lou isn't special or unique.
Metropolitan areas with the highest rates of L.G.B.T. residents
San Francisco 6.2%
Portland, Ore. 5.4%
Austin, Tex. 5.3%
New Orleans 5.1%
Boston 4.8%
Seattle 4.8%
Salt Lake City 4.7%
Denver 4.6%
Hartford 4.6%
Los Angeles 4.6%
Louisville, Ky. 4.5%
Providence, R.I. 4.4%
Virginia Beach 4.4%
Columbus, Ohio 4.3%
Jacksonville 4.3%
These cities are all considered hip, with the possible exception of Jacksonville. Louisville is 0.1% away from LA and Denver..but that is a world of difference.
Search these boards. No one considers Indy a cool city except the Indy homers.
Why has Google Fiber chosen KC, Nashville, and Louisivlle for Gigabyte internet and not Indy? Again, not a hip city. Fiber will only come to cool kid cities and those that are up and coming:
I've been to all four cities, but I have never lived in any of them. Here's my ranking:
1. Nashville
2. Kansas City
3. Louisville
4. Indianapolis
Nashville is number one because it has good shopping, amenities, employment opportunities and low cost of living. It's also the least isolated of the other cities on the list. You can easily travel to many other cities in a few hours. Next is Kansas City. It actually has a much bigger city feel to it than many would expect, and it has good shopping and amenities. It's biggest drawback is the location. You're in the middle of nowhere out there. Louisville is third -- almost put it second, but it can't really compete with Kansas City in big city features so third it goes. Indianapolis is last because it's unimpressive and isolated.
I've been to all four cities, but I have never lived in any of them. Here's my ranking:
1. Nashville
2. Kansas City
3. Louisville
4. Indianapolis
Nashville is number one because it has good shopping, amenities, employment opportunities and low cost of living. It's also the least isolated of the other cities on the list. You can easily travel to many other cities in a few hours. Next is Kansas City. It actually has a much bigger city feel to it than many would expect, and it has good shopping and amenities. It's biggest drawback is the location. You're in the middle of nowhere out there. Louisville is third -- almost put it second, but it can't really compete with Kansas City in big city features so third it goes. Indianapolis is last because it's unimpressive and isolated.
Kansas City is in the middle of nowhere yet Indianapolis is isolated?
I've been to all four cities, but I have never lived in any of them. Here's my ranking:
1. Nashville
2. Kansas City
3. Louisville
4. Indianapolis
Nashville is number one because it has good shopping, amenities, employment opportunities and low cost of living. It's also the least isolated of the other cities on the list. You can easily travel to many other cities in a few hours. Next is Kansas City. It actually has a much bigger city feel to it than many would expect, and it has good shopping and amenities. It's biggest drawback is the location. You're in the middle of nowhere out there. Louisville is third -- almost put it second, but it can't really compete with Kansas City in big city features so third it goes. Indianapolis is last because it's unimpressive and isolated.
I don't know why this bothers me, other than it's statistically inaccurate. Indianapolis is the least isolated city on this list.
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.
