U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Sterile Cities
Charlotte 23 24.21%
Tampa-St.Petesburgh 14 14.74%
Las Vegas 9 9.47%
San Diego 8 8.42%
Houston 13 13.68%
Atlanta 8 8.42%
Portland, Oregon 3 3.16%
Seattle-Tacoma 1 1.05%
Minneapolis-St.Paul 1 1.05%
other 15 15.79%
Voters: 95. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-29-2009, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Atlanta ,GA
8,144 posts, read 7,473,133 times
Reputation: 2403

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina Blue View Post
No foot in mouth for me, because unlike you, I've never tried to go back and "change" anything I said. Like how earlier you made all those NC versus Georgia comments because you were lossing the Savannah vs Charlotte argument. I stand by all my comments. That's the thing I love about message boards, your responses can't hide. You made the blanket statement below. You professed that Charlotte's industry didn't compare to Savannahs. And you didn't say anything about "in proportion to the overall economy", LMAO!!! And what difference would that make anyway to your comments? We have more visitors, and take in more dollars, period, end of story. You said the statements below knowing full well you had 100% of no idea what Charlotte's toursim was like when you wrote that. If you did, you would have noted it. Right? You would have given us some "facts", as you say. But you just assummed you knew Savannah had a larger industry. Then I gave you facts!! You put your foot in your mouth, and you got caught. Dude, we can read what you wrote. You were wrong. Just admit it, and move on...
What facts?Charlottes tourism industry is not as big as Savannah.I still stand by that.It makes since if Charlotte has a 3.6billion dollar industry,and Savannah has 2billion dollar industry which is at least 40 percent of it economy,then COMMON SENSE would tell you SAVANNAH tourism business is bigger than Charlotte.Charlotte ranks near the bottom out of the major cities in tourism.So give me facts that Charlotte's tourism industry is more than Savannah. Charlotte will have more people visit due to the fact it is a bigger city,but as I explained to you before people visit Charlotte less for tourism and more business.Are you telling me that is not true?Anyway this is not about Charlotte vs the world as you and some others are making it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-29-2009, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Atlanta ,GA
8,144 posts, read 7,473,133 times
Reputation: 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akhenaton06 View Post
It's interesting that some cities that are considered anything but sterile are included on the list (Seattle, Minneapolis), whereas some others that are genuinely considered so are omitted (Orlando, Phoenix).
Yes I agree.I said in another post how I forgot about Phoenix.Orlando I don't consider a major city.Maybe I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2009, 01:13 PM
 
Location: Atlanta ,GA
8,144 posts, read 7,473,133 times
Reputation: 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingsley View Post
This is my opinion. To me it's not very important what people on this (biased) forum say. Nor what they classify a place to be. I personally would take a clean, newish and vibrant city over any rundown, uber-expensive, gritty city, no matter how dense it is or how many old neighborhood with "character" or history it may have. The average person does not inspect a city and conclude how "sterile" it is but how liveable it is.
I agree thats why I included my city(Atlanta).I hear from some people that especially Southern and Western cities are sterile,So I added Atlanta to see how many people thought so.I added others that I felt people often say the same about too.Some people seem to think I was thinking of other cities,when in Actuality I just wanted to know how Atlanta would do in a poll of others.I was very aware that Atlanta might actually have more votes than it currently does.I was prepared to accept whatever the outcome was.It is not a science but it can give some insight to why people think the way they do.Although some people you can never tell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2009, 01:22 PM
 
4,897 posts, read 5,588,340 times
Reputation: 3056
Quote:
Originally Posted by afonega1 View Post
What is wrong with that statement?Sterile does not mean just clean,It's called a metaphor.

Usually these cities are categorized as so new that they have no soul.A lack of history and culture.Or they lack urban density.Its not just one thing it's several things.

No one said it was bad,its just a way of describing why some cities have a different feel.In another post someone said which cities are better;"suburban style cities like L.A./Atlanta,etc or traditional cities.Does not mean either one is bad.Its just that one is better for you than the next person.
Like I told Carolina Blue:high rises,light rail,and a movie theater does not make a city urban by thereselves.

I never said anything negative about Charlotte.I'm impartial to it.I just stated my opinion and facts.I think Charlotte has a bright future.ICharlotte has not even come close to its potential.I know a lot is going on ,but as of now it lacks a lot.
Well, here is my problem with your definition of "sterile". First of all, EVERY city has history. Some cities' history is evident in their buildings (some have torn down their historic buildings). Just because a city has destroyed much of its historic buildings does not mean the city has a "lack of history and culture". You seriously need to read up on Charlotte's history before you ever post again on this thread.

Secondly, you said that a "sterile" city lacks urban density. If you want to be honest, EVERY city in the south (including Atlanta) falls into this category. Miami and New Orleans are the only exceptions.

Finally, you used Richmond as your example of why Charlotte lacks "urban density". Your Richmond example shows your bias against Charlotte because Charlotte is actually more dense than Richmond. Allow me to explain.

Richmond is a city with only 60 sq/mi of land. Charlotte is a city of nearly 300 sq/mi of land. It is a well known fact that cities with less land tend to have greater density (on paper). This is why 34 sq/mi Paris has a greater density than 305 sq/mi NYC. However, 23 sq/mi Manhattan is MUCH more dense than 34 sq/mi Paris. Is it fair to call Paris "more dense" or "more urban" than NYC? Heck NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Richmond has a population of 200,000 people within 60 sq/mi of city limits. This is a density of 3,333 people per sq/mi.

If Charlotte were a city of only 61 sq/mi, Charlotte's population would be nearly 235,000 (density of 3,852 people per sq/mi). I was able to find this out by doing a "zip code" puzzle for Charlotte. I simply added up the populations of Charlotte's densest inner zip codes until I had reached the land size of Richmond. Some sources puts Charlotte's core density at as little as 3,500 people per sq/mi. Other sources estimates that Charlotte's core (60 to 70 sq/mi surrounding Uptown) has nearly 4,000 people per sq/mi. At any rate, EVERY source I've checked shows that Charlotte's core is denser than Richmond. Richmond does have a greater density of building structures (old low rise buildings), however Charlotte actually has a greater density of people (if these cities had the exact same land area).

Like I said, NO CITY in the South has "real urban" density compared to other reagions like the Midwest and Northeast. I find it hilarious that a fellow Southerner has started such a thread against one of the South's shining star.

I do agree that Charlotte is the most "sterile" of the cities you have listed in the poll. I just don't agree with your reasons for calling Charlotte sterile. That's all. I feel that your reasons completely ignore what has been going on in Charlotte the last 10 years.

Last edited by urbancharlotte; 08-29-2009 at 02:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2009, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Crown Town
2,696 posts, read 4,223,996 times
Reputation: 1569
Quote:
Originally Posted by afonega1 View Post
What facts?Charlottes tourism industry is not as big as Savannah.I still stand by that.It makes since if Charlotte has a 3.6billion dollar industry,and Savannah has 2billion dollar industry which is at least 40 percent of it economy,then COMMON SENSE would tell you SAVANNAH tourism business is bigger than Charlotte.Charlotte ranks near the bottom out of the major cities in tourism.So give me facts that Charlotte's tourism industry is more than Savannah. Charlotte will have more people visit due to the fact it is a bigger city,but as I explained to you before people visit Charlotte less for tourism and more business.Are you telling me that is not true?Anyway this is not about Charlotte vs the world as you and some others are making it.
Dude, you keep digging deeper. You said matter of factly that Charlotte's "dollars" don't compare to Savannah's. Now you're having to "explain" what you meant. Nuff said about that. Because, uhh, you know...and everybody else reading knows. But here's my question, you say "Charlotte ranks near the bottom out of the major cities in tourism." The latest Forbes list of most visited places has Charlotte ranked 26th in the nation. We're only the 34th largest metro in the country. So my question is, what should our ranking be???

America's 30 Most Visited Cities
Charlotte, NC = #26
Link: America's 30 Most Visited Cities - ForbesTraveler.com (http://www.forbestraveler.com/best-lists/most-visited-us-cities-slide-26.html?partner=playlist&thisSpeed=25000 - broken link)
Full Story: America's 30 Most Visited Cities - ForbesTraveler.com (http://www.forbestraveler.com/best-lists/most-visited-us-cities-story.html - broken link)[/quote]

And according the latest numbers toursit spending in Savannah was only $1.9 billion in 2008, not "over $2 billion", which you said before...
Link: Local tourism down, optimism up | SavannahNow.com

Tourist spending in Charlotte was $3.6 billion in 2008, practicly double Savannah's...
Link: Charlotte leads surge in visitor spending - Charlotte Business Journal:

And you're reaching with the business travelers comment because you haven't provided any proof of that at all. Charlotte is home to the US National Whitewater Center, the Billy Graham Library, several NASCAR attractions, several events that bring people here, etc. Our tourist spending is what it is. You were wrong when you claimed Savannah had a bigger industry. Just admit it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2009, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Atlanta ,GA
8,144 posts, read 7,473,133 times
Reputation: 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancharlotte View Post
Well, here is my problem with your definition of "sterile". First of all, EVERY city has history. Some cities' history is evident in their buildings (some have torn down their historic buildings). Just because a city has destroyed much of its historic buildings does not mean the city has a "lack of history and culture". You seriously need to read up on Charlotte's history before you ever post again on this thread.

Secondly, you said that a "sterile" city lacks urban density. If you want to be honest, EVERY city in the south (including Atlanta) falls into this category. Miami and New Orleans are the only exceptions.

Finally, you used Richmond as your example of why Charlotte lacks "urban density". Your Richmond example shows your biased against Charlotte because Charlotte is actually more dense than Richmond. Allow me to explain.

Richmond is a city with only 60 sq/mi of land. Charlotte is a city of nearly 300 sq/mi of land. It is a well known fact that cities with less land tend to have greater density (on paper). This is why 34 sq/mi Paris has a greater density than 305 sq/mi NYC. However, 23 sq/mi Manhattan is MUCH more dense than 34 sq/mi Paris. Is it fair to call Paris "more dense" or "more urban" than NYC? Heck NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Richmond has a population of 200,000 people within 60 sq/mi of city limits. This is a density of 3,333 people per sq/mi.

If Charlotte were a city of only 61 sq/mi, Charlotte's population would be nearly 235,000 (density of 3,852 people per sq/mi). I was able to find this out by doing a "zip code" puzzle for Charlotte. I simply added up the populations of Charlotte's densest inner zip codes until I had reached the land size of Richmond. Some sources puts Charlotte's core density at as little as 3,500 people per sq/mi. Others sources estimates that Charlotte's core has nearly 4,000 people per sq/mi. At any rate, EVERY source I've checked shows that Charlotte's core is denser than Richmond. Richmond does have a greater density of building structures (old low rise buildings), however Charlotte actually has a greater density of people (if these cities had the exact same land area).

Like I said, NO CITY in the South has "real urban" density compared to other reagions like the Midwest and Northeast. I find it hilarious that a fellow Southerner has started such a thread against one of the South's shining star.

However, I do agree that Charlotte is the most "sterile" of the cities you have listed in the poll. I just don't agree with your reasons for calling Charlotte sterile. That's all. I feel that your reasons completely ignore what has been going on in Charlotte the last 10 years.
Ok .Look I apologize if I came off as a Charlotte hater.That was not my intent.But this is the same arguments used over and over.Charlotte,Houston,and other cities have annexed a lot of land over the years.As I said before,we can go into all kinds of reason why cities have this or that.I actually agree with you about density and smaller cities.However as the land size is defined in each city,Richmond is more dense.It is what it is.Thats not bias,thats just the facts.

I don't even argue points like that when Atlanta is involved because it does not change anything.Point is you are right all southern cities need more density to become more vibrant.Too much density can be bad too.

As far as history is concerned.Yes all cities have history,but I have history too.Do you know my history?Why not I'm relative.I'm special.My mom says so!"Get where i'm going with this?
If Charlotte and its history and culture are not well known to the region or the nation ore world,then how can it have influence areas around its in the region(outside of the state)?Savannah and Charleston are in everyones history book in the country.Atlanta due to the civil war and MLK.JR are also a part of regional and national history.Charlotte?I agree I do need to read about Charlotte's history.I know very little.But what about knowing about Omaha's history?or San Diego's history?

Yes Atlanta lacks urban density on a large scale.But it is "somewhat dense".I mean its somewhat continuous,with many small breaks in between.Charlotte has VAST breaks in between.In fact there is not much (density)outside of Uptown.While they are building at a breakneck pace,this lead to my point of "sterile".
With all that "newness" there is a "clean slate "no history,no culture".(or for arguments sake very little of the two).
I mentioned in a previous post about Atlanta's Atlantic Station development.It filled a vast area physically and economically,but its newness no matter how nice, is very "sterile".It will take time to have a sense of place in Atlanta.

So that is what sterile is when its about cities.History,culture,urbanity.I might add that urbanity does not specifically mean just tall buildings or high-end shopping,or even entertainment.It means more.Like pedestrian traffic.How that happens does not matter as long as its their.After all what good is a couple of high rises if they empty out at 6pm everyday and people get in their cars to drive home 10-20 miles away?

So this poll is not about where cities are going,it's about where they are.Most cities in the poll are growing and doing great things for their future.Some more than others.It is 28 AUG 2009,where are you at TODAY?

Last edited by afonega1; 08-29-2009 at 02:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2009, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Atlanta ,GA
8,144 posts, read 7,473,133 times
Reputation: 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina Blue View Post
Dude, you keep digging deeper. You said matter of factly that Charlotte's "dollars" don't compare to Savannah's. Now you're having to "explain" what you meant. Nuff said about that. Because, uhh, you know...and everybody else reading knows. But here's my question, you say "Charlotte ranks near the bottom out of the major cities in tourism." The latest Forbes list of most visited places has Charlotte ranked 26th in the nation. We're only the 34th largest metro in the country. So my question is, what should our ranking be???

America's 30 Most Visited Cities
Charlotte, NC = #26
Link: America's 30 Most Visited Cities - ForbesTraveler.com (http://www.forbestraveler.com/best-lists/most-visited-us-cities-slide-26.html?partner=playlist&thisSpeed=25000 - broken link)
Full Story: America's 30 Most Visited Cities - ForbesTraveler.com (http://www.forbestraveler.com/best-lists/most-visited-us-cities-story.html - broken link)
And according the latest numbers toursit spending in Savannah was only $1.9 billion in 2008, not "over $2 billion", which you said before...
Link: Local tourism down, optimism up | SavannahNow.com

Tourist spending in Charlotte was $3.6 billion in 2008, practicly double Savannah's...
Link: Charlotte leads surge in visitor spending - Charlotte Business Journal:

And you're reaching with the business travelers comment because you haven't provided any proof of that at all. Charlotte is home to the US National Whitewater Center, the Billy Graham Library, several NASCAR attractions, several events that bring people here, etc. Our tourist spending is what it is. You were wrong when you claimed Savannah had a bigger industry. Just admit it.[/quote]

Quote:
Ok i admit it the Billy Graham Library and NASCAR museum is tops on my list. Whitewater?You're serious?LOL

I think it is you digging deeper and deeper my friend.
LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2009, 02:44 PM
 
4,897 posts, read 5,588,340 times
Reputation: 3056
Quote:
Originally Posted by afonega1 View Post
It is 28 AUG 2009,where is your at TODAY?
The bottom line is no matter how many steps Charlotte takes forward, YOU will be here to remind us that Charlotte is still 30 steps behind the likes of Charleston and Savannah. Oh, ok, I get it now.

Last edited by urbancharlotte; 08-29-2009 at 02:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2009, 02:47 PM
 
Location: Atlanta ,GA
8,144 posts, read 7,473,133 times
Reputation: 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancharlotte View Post
The bottom line is no matter how many steps Charlotte takes forward, YOU will be here to remind us that Charlotte is still 30 steps behind the likes of Charleston and Savannah.

Oh, ok, I get it now.
Geez...I though the Texans and Atlantan were the worse.I will give you Charlotte people props,you are persistent.Glad you got it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2009, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Crown Town
2,696 posts, read 4,223,996 times
Reputation: 1569
Quote:
Originally Posted by afonega1 View Post
Ok i admit it the Billy Graham Library and NASCAR museum is tops on my list. Whitewater?You're serious?LOL

I think it is you digging deeper and deeper my friend.
You continue to prove over and over that you don't know anything about Charlotte. The US National Whitewater Center in Charlotte attracts over a half million visitors each year. You'd think by now you'd stop trying to write about stuff you don't know. As I said, you keep falling in deeper and deeper...

"The U.S. National Whitewater Center is an outdoor recreation facility set on the banks of the Catawba River. Our 307 acres of woodlands is home to the world's largest recirculating river, 14 miles of biking, hiking and running trails, and one of the world's largest outdoor climbing facilities..."
Website: US National Whitewater Center


YouTube - US National Whitewater Center
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top