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.
Legacy cities and non-legacy cities have different advantages and disadvantages. Legacy city refers to a city that largely boomed in the early-mid 20th century. They are mostly in the Northeast and Midwest, have strong cultural fabric, good public transit, rich architecture, and well endowed cultural institutions. They also have higher concentrations of poverty, lower median income, more abandonment, and slow or negative population growth. Examples are Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburg.
Non legacy cities boomed more recently, are experiencing rapid growth, have higher median incomes than legacy cities. However, they are lacking in historic architecture, strong cultural institutions, public transit, and walkability.
I voted legacy which I think is a no brainer if you love cities. It should be mentioned though that there are a handful of places that share the qualities of both - San Francisco, Washington DC and Minneapolis were all major cities by the early 20th century, and have the institutions to show for it, but still have healthy growth today; Richmond and Savannah are the same thing on a smaller level.
Legacy city. Atmosphere and history are important to me as is a chronologially diverse architecture. Also, legacy cities tend to be located in my favored climates.
The only real draw of a non-Legacy city for me would be if it were in close proximity to a natural environment that I wanted to explore.
Legacy cities and non-legacy cities have different advantages and disadvantages. Legacy city refers to a city that largely boomed in the early-mid 20th century. They are mostly in the Northeast and Midwest, have strong cultural fabric, good public transit, rich architecture, and well endowed cultural institutions. They also have higher concentrations of poverty, lower median income, more abandonment, and slow or negative population growth. Examples are Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburg.
Non legacy cities boomed more recently, are experiencing rapid growth, have higher median incomes than legacy cities. However, they are lacking in historic architecture, strong cultural institutions, public transit, and walkability.
Which type of city do you prefer and why?
Non legacy cities for me. Although I prefer ones that still have those things you mentioned (cultural institutions, historic architecture, transit, walkability). California cities I think strike the best balance.
Those legacy cities you mentioned are great to visit, but I don't feel like I fit in well.
I like the traditions but I am not a traditionalist so I am a non-preference person. I think looking at the architecture is beautiful in a legacy city, but the future is bright in a non-legacy city and offers so much to the making of new life and culture. I also think that they are more flexible to try to adapt and build towards a future. Legacy cities are old white men cities. Non-legacy are for the future of the US and hopefully the world. I would like it if non-legacy cities did pay more attention to the artistic nature of their design. We shall see. Hopefully a city like Raleigh will show me something.
For me the answer is a no brainer - Legacy City any day, even though I enjoy modern ones too.
I've been to Quebec City and Montreal many times, and I absolutely love them. Deep Legacy.
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.