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.
Not lost in translation, but you like to tell others how stupid they are for thinking differently than you while spelling part of your sentence incorrectly...just kind of humorous.
Public transportation in Norfolk (city only) is OK. I would guess that a large majority of those who really rely on it would support that. The light rail is a nice first investment, but that's a single, 7 mile line. Like so many other American cities, it's not uncommon to take a bus over an hour to get someplace that's not all that far. And Richmond's GRTC is not any better here from my experience (maybe worse). That would be the "pretty standard rotten" that I mentioned. But that's an American thing.
And I saw that you were talking about the city only, but it's kind of unreasonable to have an infrastructure discussion with only the city limits in play, given that people from all over the metro use infrastructure from all over. Think of the people who work in Norfolk, but live in VA Beach (I'd rather be shot). IMO "better" 'infrastructure has to do with how well an area is serviced for the population that exists. While HRs population is 500k larger, I would say it does not handle the population well on its roads (which is the only real way to get around the metro, minus a ferry that goes from Norfolk to Portsmouth, etc.). There are plenty of great modern marvels there, but it wasn't built to handle the amount of people in cars that come through. That's coming from someone who's sat in traffic around Norfolk dozens of times. So, when I think of good infrastructure, I think of how easy it is to get to/from work throughout the metro.
Well, the stupidity comment would be directed at some one stupid enough to argue about infrastructure. Basic comprehension is a lot different than misspelling a commonly misspelled word. Obviously it WASNT lost in translation ...which means there is no reason to tell me about it unless some one just wanted to use it as a petty introduction into a simple minded argument about infrastructure, as if to discredit in some way. I saw it late, it could be slightly ironic, but not really. Some folks just cant seem to stay within the city limits of the "City" of Richmond when discussing issues. But, but, but...but hell, Norfolk has light rail, I already stated it was a starter line, so what? Its infrastructure located in the "City" of Norfolk. I see you seem to want to ignore all the other forms of "infrastructure" ....airport, rail yards, ports, piers, marinas etc...all in the city limits of the "City" of Norfolk...why even argue at this point? SMH.
Now its unreasonable to talk about infrastructure with only the city limits in play? I don't think so, no more than any of the other topics. I just followed what is asked...certain folks continuously try to isolate Norfolk from its metro thinking that will help their case. Folks chose to single out Norfolk, so there it is. City vs city means just that to me, and especially in Virginia where your city is YOUR city.
Well, the stupidity comment would be directed at some one stupid enough to argue about infrastructure. Basic comprehension is a lot different than misspelling a commonly misspelled word. Obviously it WASNT lost in translation ...which means there is no reason to tell me about it unless some one just wanted to use it as a petty introduction into a simple minded argument about infrastructure, as if to discredit in some way. I saw it late, it could be slightly ironic, but not really. Some folks just cant seem to stay within the city limits of the "City" of Richmond when discussing issues. But, but, but...but hell, Norfolk has light rail, I already stated it was a starter line, so what? Its infrastructure located in the "City" of Norfolk. I see you seem to want to ignore all the other forms of "infrastructure" ....airport, rail yards, ports, piers, marinas etc...all in the city limits of the "City" of Norfolk...why even argue at this point? SMH.
Now its unreasonable to talk about infrastructure with only the city limits in play? I don't think so, no more than any of the other topics. I just followed what is asked...certain folks continuously try to isolate Norfolk from its metro thinking that will help their case. Folks chose to single out Norfolk, so there it is. City vs city means just that to me, and especially in Virginia where your city is YOUR city.
Blah blah blah. The discussion is around which city people prefer. Infrastructure is one of those categories to consider. The infrastructure in Norfolk exceeds Richmond, but I believe that transportation is easier in Richmond. You can talk about marinas, piers and ports all you want, but I don't believe they exceed the quality of life impact that general transportation infrastructure has on daily life for someone who lives there (or who might frequently drive through). In other words, I'd prefer to have less piers and marinas to be able to get to work more easily.
And you can divorce the city limits from the metro all you want. It does not take away from the fact that the metro in general has an impact on the city (e.g. how many people are driving on the roads, etc.). For example, I wouldn't feel slighted that Norfolk has an airport in the city limits and Richmond's is outside the city limits. That doesn't have much of an impact on QOL because both cities have an airport in close proximity.
But to your point, Norfolk has more modern marvels, concrete and modes than Richmond all day. I guess if someone really cares that's a good thing.
Blah blah blah. The discussion is around which city people prefer. Infrastructure is one of those categories to consider. The infrastructure in Norfolk exceeds Richmond, but I believe that transportation is easier in Richmond. You can talk about marinas, piers and ports all you want, but I don't believe they exceed the quality of life impact that general transportation infrastructure has on daily life for someone who lives there (or who might frequently drive through). In other words, I'd prefer to have less piers and marinas to be able to get to work more easily.
And you can divorce the city limits from the metro all you want. It does not take away from the fact that the metro in general has an impact on the city (e.g. how many people are driving on the roads, etc.). For example, I wouldn't feel slighted that Norfolk has an airport in the city limits and Richmond's is outside the city limits. That doesn't have much of an impact on QOL because both cities have an airport in close proximity.
But to your point, Norfolk has more modern marvels, concrete and modes than Richmond all day. I guess if someone really cares that's a good thing.
Blah, blah,blah is right. Basically, you like to move the goal post as it fits you is what youre basically saying. And you obviously have a limited understanding of what infrastructure means. Don't care to argue your BELIEFS or preference. And you, like many people up here, fail to pay attention...city vs city is the name of the game...that is how they wanted it. And the sad thing is if, you end up conceding the point of better infrastructure to Norfolk...WTF did you even bother to argue about it for? SMH.
Blah, blah,blah is right. Basically, you like to move the goal post as it fits you is what youre basically saying. And you obviously have a limited understanding of what infrastructure means. Don't care to argue your BELIEFS or preference.
How was the goalpost moved? And how have I exhibited a lack of understanding around infrastructure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 757Cities Southsider
And you, like many people up here, fail to pay attention...city vs city is the name of the game...that is how they wanted it.
CvC doesn't mean city limits vs. city limits necessarily. In most cases metros are in play. These threads are opinion pieces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 757Cities Southsider
And the sad thing is if, you end up conceding the point of better infrastructure to Norfolk...WTF did you even bother to argue about it for? SMH.
Not sure what to say here. You don't seem to be reading what I typed. Here it is again:
Quote:
The discussion is around which city people prefer. Infrastructure is one of those categories to consider. The infrastructure in Norfolk exceeds Richmond, but I believe that transportation is easier in Richmond. You can talk about marinas, piers and ports all you want, but I don't believe they exceed the quality of life impact that general transportation infrastructure has on daily life for someone who lives there (or who might frequently drive through). In other words, I'd prefer to have less piers and marinas to be able to get to work more easily.
How was the goalpost moved? And how have I exhibited a lack of understanding around infrastructure?
CvC doesn't mean city limits vs. city limits necessarily. In most cases metros are in play. These threads are opinion pieces.
Not sure what to say here. You don't seem to be reading what I typed. Here it is again:
More does not always mean better. Get it?
Goalposts move when focus is changed...if some one is too....... ........ ..... ......then I cant help them. Your "limited understanding of what infrastructure means"? You seem to think "general transportation infrastructure" is only for people who are "frequently driving through." See people frequently FLY too and SHIPS sail frequently too...and it is integral to impacting life day to day and significantly impacts QOL. Trains frequently transport goods, for people who live HERE and elsewhere, day to day. So piers, marinas, harbors, are also important for people who fish crab everyday. And to have the diverse ability to travel/modes of transportation from land, sea, or air does make for better over all infrastructure when sound. What YOU prefer is your business. And like I said before, Norfolk has the fourth cleanest water in the country due to its nine reservoirs...that is a plus to QOL all of which is "general infrastructure". Comprehensive understanding of infrastructure would prevent someone from arguing with me about it...unless they were, well....
If city vs city didn't mean city limits then the WHOLE argument would've been different for the simple fact that VA Beach, Portsmouth, Newport News, Hampton etc. would've been used to Norfolks benefit, if that were the case. If this was about "metros" then it wouldn't just say "Norfolk." Only when realizing all the things that are NOT located in "Richmonds" city limits, do people start talking about "metro." This is one way goalposts move in here. This thread came out of the Norfolk peers cities thread iir.
Oh, Ive been reading what you typed, and I "got it" the first time. Did you read what I typed : "Don't care to argue your BELIEFS and preferences"...do YOU get it? You can believe that we're under attack by an alien nation with an armada of flying monkeys...so what?
Goalposts move when focus is changed...if some one is too....... ........ ..... ......then I cant help them. Your "limited understanding of what infrastructure means"? You seem to think "general transportation infrastructure" is only for people who are "frequently driving through." See people frequently FLY too and SHIPS sail frequently too...and it is integral to impacting life day to day and significantly impacts QOL. Trains frequently transport goods, for people who live HERE and elsewhere, day to day. So piers, marinas, harbors, are also important for people who fish crab everyday. And to have the diverse ability to travel/modes of transportation from land, sea, or air does make for better over all infrastructure when sound. What YOU prefer is your business. And like I said before, Norfolk has the fourth cleanest water in the country due to its nine reservoirs...that is a plus to QOL all of which is "general infrastructure". Comprehensive understanding of infrastructure would prevent someone from arguing with me about it...unless they were, well....
You realize this thread states "Better City..." in the title, right? "Better" is subjective. The OP asked for what people thought was better. That will differ by person. You are interacting in a forum under the guise that CvC is some fact-based, scientific place. It is not, certainly not in a thread about which one people think is better.
Despite that, let's break down infrastructure per your post:
Airports - Richmond and Norfolk both have one. Both require connections to most places, and neither is a hub. Trains - Passenger trains depart from Richmond and Norfolk. Richmond is "arguably" in the better location, closer to the NEC and other places not in the HRs. Freight train infrastructure exists in both. I assume that both are served well. Not sure if one is larger than the other, although this is where Norfolk probably benefits by being part of a multi-city, larger metro. Roads - Norfolk has more of them and some impressive bridges. Norfolk has more congestion and traffic. Harbors - Norfolk is the only city with a harbor in its city limits. Marinas and piers - Norfolk certainly has more of these. Reservoirs - Norfolk has ten constructed reservoirs, not all are in Norfolk. Another benefit to being in a larger metro.
I'm sure you know more about Norfolk's infrastructure, but while you say it's only the city, there is no way to separate Norfolk from its surroundings. Norfolk benefits from all 10 reservoirs because the world doesn't stop at its municipality's borders. And because Norfolk has harbors, marinas and piers, it doesn't mean that its infrastructure is better across the board. I may prefer the roads to be right-sized over having the highest number of piers in the state. And while the number of piers may benefit me indirectly, who's to say that your perspective is the right answer? And it is a perspective that infrastructure is overall "better" in Norfolk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 757Cities Southsider
If city vs city didn't mean city limits then the WHOLE argument would've been different for the simple fact that VA Beach, Portsmouth, Newport News, Hampton etc. would've been used to Norfolks benefit, if that were the case. If this was about "metros" then it wouldn't just say "Norfolk." Only when realizing all the things that are NOT located in "Richmonds" city limits, do people start talking about "metro." This is one way goalposts move in here. This thread came out of the Norfolk peers cities thread iir.
You're mixing two things here: 1) CvC does not mean city limits vs. city limits across the board as you suggested, and 2) the OP listed Norfolk because it doesn't make sense to compare one city vs five cities. HOWEVER, you skip over the fact that Norfolk would neither have the amount of infrastructure it has nor would it look and feel the same if everything outside the city borders were gone. Same for Richmond. You can't argue black/white perspective because that would mean Richmond doesn't have an airport and that no one could ever fly in/out of Richmond. That makes no sense.
IMO, a more sensible approach would be to talk from a point of view. My point of view is that Norfolk traffic sucks for a city of its size. I also think it has a beautiful harbor that Richmond doesn't have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 757Cities Southsider
Oh, Ive been reading what you typed, and I "got it" the first time. Did you read what I typed : "Don't care to argue your BELIEFS and preferences"...do YOU get it? You can believe that we're under attack by an alien nation with an armada of flying monkeys...so what?
I believe you read, but you're not very reasonable when it comes to this discussion. Case in point above. You compare someone who has an opinion about Norfolk's infrastructure in an opinion-based thread to someone believing in an alien nation and flying monkeys. Right...
You realize this thread states "Better City..." in the title, right? "Better" is subjective. The OP asked for what people thought was better. That will differ by person. You are interacting in a forum under the guise that CvC is some fact-based, scientific place. It is not, certainly not in a thread about which one people think is better.
Despite that, let's break down infrastructure per your post:
Airports - Richmond and Norfolk both have one. Both require connections to most places, and neither is a hub. Trains - Passenger trains depart from Richmond and Norfolk. Richmond is "arguably" in the better location, closer to the NEC and other places not in the HRs. Freight train infrastructure exists in both. I assume that both are served well. Not sure if one is larger than the other, although this is where Norfolk probably benefits by being part of a multi-city, larger metro. Roads - Norfolk has more of them and some impressive bridges. Norfolk has more congestion and traffic. Harbors - Norfolk is the only city with a harbor in its city limits. Marinas and piers - Norfolk certainly has more of these. Reservoirs - Norfolk has ten constructed reservoirs, not all are in Norfolk. Another benefit to being in a larger metro.
I'm sure you know more about Norfolk's infrastructure, but while you say it's only the city, there is no way to separate Norfolk from its surroundings. Norfolk benefits from all 10 reservoirs because the world doesn't stop at its municipality's borders. And because Norfolk has harbors, marinas and piers, it doesn't mean that its infrastructure is better across the board. I may prefer the roads to be right-sized over having the highest number of piers in the state. And while the number of piers may benefit me indirectly, who's to say that your perspective is the right answer? And it is a perspective that infrastructure is overall "better" in Norfolk.
You're mixing two things here: 1) CvC does not mean city limits vs. city limits across the board as you suggested, and 2) the OP listed Norfolk because it doesn't make sense to compare one city vs five cities. HOWEVER, you skip over the fact that Norfolk would neither have the amount of infrastructure it has nor would it look and feel the same if everything outside the city borders were gone. Same for Richmond. You can't argue black/white perspective because that would mean Richmond doesn't have an airport and that no one could ever fly in/out of Richmond. That makes no sense.
IMO, a more sensible approach would be to talk from a point of view. My point of view is that Norfolk traffic sucks for a city of its size. I also think it has a beautiful harbor that Richmond doesn't have.
I believe you read, but you're not very reasonable when it comes to this discussion. Case in point above. You compare someone who has an opinion about Norfolk's infrastructure in an opinion-based thread to someone believing in an alien nation and flying monkeys. Right...
I was with a group of new friends who stay in Jackson Ward yesterday. Three of them are in a band, small outfit just getting gigs. All four of them are from the Tidewater (two from Chesapeake, one from Norfolk, one from Virginia Beach). One goes to VCU, one other goes to J Sergeant...
Anyway, we got into conversation about the local music scene in Richmond and Norfolk. From the comparison of people who have experienced both cities, they all told me Norfolk scene is claustrophobic and capped off. They also told me Granby being the only real music district in Norfolk hurts musicians, as the local scene just isn't nearly as large enough or diverse as Richmond's...
It was a very interesting and enlightening viewpoint. This is the second time just this year that I've heard that Norfolk's music scene is dead in comparison to Richmond's...
As I have no experience with Norfolk's, all I have to go on is the word of those who have been in both cities, respectfully. I will say, when the conversation on music between Richmond-Norfolk comes up on this forum, I think people have tended to think about Norfolk in terms of nationally known acts, instead of tye grassroots, homegrown scene, and what it is like for local musicians. One of my best friends lives in Williamsburg now, but he was born and raised between VB and Chesapeake, and he is involved in the Tidewater scene. He's never been a part of the Richmond scene, but his descriptives of the Tidewater scene mirror those of the friends I have here in Richmond who have dabbled in both...
By all accounts so far, Richmond is more welcoming, more expansive, more diverse in genre, has a larger community, has more venues, has more music-oriented districts and venues, isn't as elitist, and is closer knit as a community. Richmond appears to be much more thriving. Sure, there aren't many nationally known acts from RVA. But the local music culture is huge for a city this size, and very attractive to people from the Tidewater...
As an aside, I'll be in Adams Morgan, DC tomorrow for a Sticky Fingers Collective show. STC is a Richmond label and popular with people from both cities. This is yet another real life example of links between Rich and DC, to which outsiders on this site have commented didn't exist...
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.
