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.
Let's not forget that one time the Rust Belt cities were the boomtowns, full of transplants and new construction. It's all a cycle. One day the growth in the Sunbelt will slow down, the new stuff will become old and gain character, charm, and grit. I enjoy the Rust Belt cities for their mature built environments, and I enjoy the Sunbelt cities because I can see their potential being fulfilled right before my eyes.
I hate that argument. It's not a natural law that cities will, inevitably, suck one day. The reason the rust belt is so rusty today is that it never adapted to a new, global economy. It got suckered by the unions and narrow-minded leaders in the cities and never did what the Chicagos and Columbuses did by diversifying their economies and becoming attractive to educated, upwardly mobile young people.
The southern and western boom towns will continue to boom as long as they continue doing what made them popular in the first place: low taxes, diverse economy, affordable housing, openness to business, good schools, etc. The very things that made the sunbelt so great are the things that will prevent them from becoming another Detroit or Cleveland.
And you understand that nowhere in my sentence included the term "Atlanta" or implies Atlanta regardless of the context...right?
You should read the entire discussion that you recently joined to understand the relevance of my comment. The claim has been made that southern cities have very little comparable historic architecture - that they are all "newer" cities. I realize you didn't say that, but it was a continuation of the current discussion.
How is it that you think you know the kinds of neighborhoods we have in the South? The NE does not have a monopoly on urban/historic neighborhoods...I'm not going to list or post photos of Atlanta's neighborhoods that fit this category, but there are a lot of them - and in other cities outside of the NE as well.
Cities like Atlanta, Houston, New Orleans, Memphis, Nashville, Savannah, Birmingham, Chattanooga, Winston-Salem, Richmond, Norfolk, Roanoke, Charleston, Columbia, Wilmington, Greensobor, Savannah, Greenville, Augusta, Mobile, Dallas, Louisville, Asheville, and so on - they weren't just recently inhabited (some go back to the 1700s, others the early 1800s) and all have plenty of old urban neighborhoods to choose from. On the flip side, all cities have their share of 90s suburbia and/or sprawling subdivisions - and that includes Pittsburgh and other NE cities.
You love to follow me around and attack everything I say, don't you? Calm down. Put me on ignore or something. Jesus.
What I said was correct too. I said that CHARLOTTE HAD OLD NEIGHBORHOODS. I didn't say that there wasn't old neighborhoods in the south. But I said that much of inner city Charlotte had neighborhoods that are newer that are the same time point of Pittsburgh's suburbs. I meant that there are many more historic and unique neighborhoods in Pittsburgh's inner city than you will find in Charlottes inner city. I didn't say that cities like Richmond, Charleston, Savannah, and others didn't have old urban areas. It isn't hard to believe that Pittsburgh was a huge city in the 1800s compared to other cities now that are bigger than it. So there for it will have a larger amount of older neighborhoods. I know that may be a shocker.
How is this hard to understand? Why would one even argue with such a easy to understand point? Settle yourself down.
You do understand that much of Atlanta's in-town housing stock is 100 years old...right? I can't speak for housing in other cities of the South, but none of the larger cities are "new" and they all have tons of housing from the turn-of-the-century.
I'm not sure you can really back a statement like "most of the stock today is crap" when you don't know that to be true. Some of it is, some of it isn't. There was some crap built in 1920 also - there is a pile of crap next door to me from that era that hasn't held up, while the rest of my neighbors (and mine) has held up well.
Jesus, watch out for this guy. He is on a war path!
Buildings that are built today come from different materials, different construction methods and so on. There are many older houses in the south and north built in the 1800s that were built to be quality. Most of the new urban sprawl suburbs are cheaply built. However, many of the 1950s post ww2 white flight suburbs were also built to about the same manner. Nobody is dennying the fact that the south doesn't have old houses. Seriously dude, you need to settle down. Nobody is putting Atlanta or the south down. Why are you so defensive and argumentative? Stating the obvious like cities in the N.E. were larger in the 1800s, so they have MORE 1800s neighborhoods is not that much of a shocker. However, we arn't saying that the south doesn't have 1800s neighborhoods either. Just not as many.
And in my opinion, the neighborhoods that came from the 1800s in the south are a lot more nicer looking than the ones we got here. Are you going to attack me too for having that opinion.
I wonder how many strip malls are in the greater Pittsburgh area? Or is all retail in unique, historic buildings?
You just really don't understand, do you? "Unique" doesn't refer to a certain era...there was crap built in 1900 just like there crap built today, and there is unique, interesting architecture from 1990 just as there was in 1900.
There are many once you get outside the city of Pittsburgh. The same can not be said for a city like Charlotte. I have to disagree that there are unique things built today. Most construction now a days is low quality cookie cutter garbage.
There are many once you get outside the city of Pittsburgh. The same can not be said for a city like Charlotte. I have to disagree that there are unique things built today. Most construction now a days is low quality cookie cutter garbage.
I live in the outer edge of Pittsburgh. It is a neighborhood that was developed in the 1920s. It is about the youngest neighborhood in the city of Pittsburgh. That is not to say that there are cookie cutter crap all around the city. You get your 1970s development when you get out to places like Moronville which is about 20 miles out. The further out, the newer the construction. Places like Charlotte have 1970-1990 neighborhoods in the city. But that isn't saying that there is 1800 neighborhoods there too, just not as many.
I don't even see why this deacon dude is finding that so offensive.
Some newer stuff is built well. There are many new green buildings that are of high quality in every city. However, majority is crap. AKA stripmalls, subdivision housing.
People are born there and most of them don't have the drive or the ability to move. they start having kids young or they just don't have what it takes to pick up and move out. in other words they get trapped by trapping themselves. luckily, i am moving from the rust belt to the south very soon...
I hate that argument. It's not a natural law that cities will, inevitably, suck one day. The reason the rust belt is so rusty today is that it never adapted to a new, global economy. It got suckered by the unions and narrow-minded leaders in the cities and never did what the Chicagos and Columbuses did by diversifying their economies and becoming attractive to educated, upwardly mobile young people.
The southern and western boom towns will continue to boom as long as they continue doing what made them popular in the first place: low taxes, diverse economy, affordable housing, openness to business, good schools, etc. The very things that made the sunbelt so great are the things that will prevent them from becoming another Detroit or Cleveland.
I wasn't talking about Sunbelt economies vs. Rustbelt economies. I was talking about the nature of the built environment in both types of cities. Rustbelt cities have a mature urban fabric because they matured earlier. Sunbelt cities are now experiencing their "boom" and so it will take some years for their built environments to achieve the density and maturity that is now enjoyed by Rustbelt cities. I was not implying that the local economies of Sunbelt cities were destined to follow the same path as those of Rustbelt cities.
People are born there and most of them don't have the drive or the ability to move. they start having kids young or they just don't have what it takes to pick up and move out. in other words they get trapped by trapping themselves. luckily, i am moving from the rust belt to the south very soon...
I had the drive, got an engineering degree, and moved out west. Then I moved back home. Thanks for stereotyping everybody that lives in the "rustbelt" as lazy people without drive, or people who started having kids to early and are "stuck". Some of us really enjoy the towns we live in, and don't want to move south.
I hate this idea that everybody from the north wants to move south, but only the smart driven ones do. I wouldn't ever even consider moving south. I like many towns down there, but the weather woudl drive me crazy. If anything I would go back out west.
LOL...i take it you're from Ohio and not from Chicago. if you were, you would understand my comments about children having children and people being lazy without an iota of drive.
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.
I didn't say that there wasn't old neighborhoods in the south. But I said that much of inner city Charlotte had neighborhoods that are newer that are the same time point of Pittsburgh's suburbs. I meant that there are many more historic and unique neighborhoods in Pittsburgh's inner city than you will find in Charlottes inner city. I didn't say that cities like Richmond, Charleston, Savannah, and others didn't have old urban areas. It isn't hard to believe that Pittsburgh was a huge city in the 1800s compared to other cities now that are bigger than it. So there for it will have a larger amount of older neighborhoods. I know that may be a shocker.
