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 me put it this way. I could live in Austin. I would never live in Louisville.
I've been to both Austin and Louisville and I have to say there is quite a noticeable difference. First, Austin is located in a Plains state, and it also seems much more rich and upbeat and vibrant than Louisville. Austin felt a lot bigger than Louisville did to me. i'm not exactly sure I'd say Austin is as southern as Louisville is either. it certainly didn't feel that Southern to me....felt more like a mix of south and southwest. After all Mexico isn't that far away.
"Let me put it this way. I could live in Austin. I would never live in Louisville."
I was just saying that I read it on these forums. I have never been to Texas, much less Austin. As far as Winn-Dixie, the ones here always had the best deals and I loved their generic brands. I miss 'em dang it!
This is the post I am talking about :-) Thanks, STX
"Louisville, surprisingly, is VERY much like Austin. In fact, they are nearly identical in size, culture and vibe with two key differences:
1) Louisville is not viewed nationally as trendy or cool (even though many urbanites here view it that way), thus the job/population growth hasn't hit here like Austin (although it is growing steadily thank you)
2) Our flagship college is not nearly as good academically and is much smaller, so less young people get exposed to a very cool city.
Did you know Louisville and Austin have the same slogan? I am not sure who copied who, but here you go:
keep Louisville weird ®
keep austin weird
I think those slogans sum up how alike the two cities are. Few people know this, however.
Austin is growing much faster, but as of 2000 the metro areas were very similar in size.
Let me make another analogy. Louisville is sort of like buying a retro T shirt from a local indie thrift shop. Austin is sort of like buying the same looking T-shirt from Urban Outfitters for 50% more. This is not to say that Austin is not an independent type city, because it clearly struck me that way, but it seemed to also be attracting this class of urban yuppie that one normally finds in much larger cities--DC and Chicago are two.
Austin has 6th street.
6th street austin, texas
Louisville has 4th street, a corporate version of it.
Fourth Street Live!
What makes Louisville so unique is its strong urban fabric for a city its size, similar in ways to Austin. Here, upscale dining, arts, and alternative lifestyles are very prominent in the urban areas, but they are surrounded by a ring of conservative suburbs, much like in Austin.
The Highlands (Louisville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Old Louisville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The above are just two of the urban areas where you will find many hipster, progressive types.
Two art gallery hops, one downtown, and one in Clifton/Crescent Hill, another progressive urban area:
First Friday Gallery/Trolley Hop
F.A.T. Friday Hop
To give you a small idea of the over 1 BILLION in construction currently about to start downtown, here of some of the larger projects. In addition, thousands more condo units are being added. Downtown has a ways to go, but it will be unrecognizable in 10 years:
A 62 story avant garde skyscraper drawing international attention for its architecture:
Museum Plaza - Creating A Place In Louisville's Architectural Character.
A new downtown basketball arena:
Louisville Arena Authority
A major urban retail project:
Iron Quarter | Louisville, KY
And one of the largest inland water based/marina highrise communites in the US:
RiverPark Louisville Kentucky, Lofts and Luxury Condos
All of this is in addition to major initiatives the city has already completed, and many smaller projects under construction and ongoing, including things like us landing a new Fortune 1000 pharmaceutical company, Pharmerica, which will be the 6th such locally based operation on the list. Of course, this is only a cursury listing, but hope it helps.
Louisville is still in KY. So it is friendly, cheap, and carefree. There are rednecks all over, especially outside the immediate downtown and surrounding hoods. After living with the hassle of Chicago for years, I am just fine with that. Rednecks are friendly "
I've been to both Austin and Louisville and I have to say there is quite a noticeable difference. First, Austin is located in a Plains state, and it also seems much more rich and upbeat and vibrant than Louisville. Austin felt a lot bigger than Louisville did to me. i'm not exactly sure I'd say Austin is as southern as Louisville is either. it certainly didn't feel that Southern to me....felt more like a mix of south and southwest. After all Mexico isn't that far away.
Feelings aside, they are very similar in many statistically based ways, and both are essentially over grown college towns with very similar city and metro area populations. They both have unique urban areas with a similar indie-kitsch vibe that is best exemplified by the fact that the two cities share the same slogan. The main differences are Austin is growing much faster and thus has more high paying jobs to offer.
As another example, many people would say Indianapolis "feels" larger than St. Louis. As Austin is growing faster than Louisville, Indy is growing faster than STL. If one were to attend a convention downtown in both cities, Indy is much more impressive--more shopping, stores, events, restuarants, everything in downtown. Indy even has taller buildings. However, this does not mean Indy is larger than St Louis, as this clearly is not the case statistically. Also, even though St Louis' downtown leaves much to be desired for a city its size, there is a lot going on in different neighborhoods all around, and the MSA is substatially larger than Indianapolis, even if visitors to both downtowns feel like Indy is larger. Indy, for example, has nothing comprable to the Central West End or even Soulard.
Feelings aside, they are very similar in many statistically based ways, and both are essentially over grown college towns with very similar city and metro area populations. They both have unique urban areas with a similar indie-kitsch vibe that is best exemplified by the fact that the two cities share the same slogan. The main differences are Austin is growing much faster and thus has more high paying jobs to offer.
As another example, many people would say Indianapolis "feels" larger than St. Louis. As Austin is growing faster than Louisville, Indy is growing faster than STL. If one were to attend a convention downtown in both cities, Indy is much more impressive--more shopping, stores, events, restuarants, everything in downtown. Indy even has taller buildings. However, this does not mean Indy is larger than St Louis, as this clearly is not the case statistically. Also, even though St Louis' downtown leaves much to be desired for a city its size, there is a lot going on in different neighborhoods all around, and the MSA is substatially larger than Indianapolis, even if visitors to both downtowns feel like Indy is larger. Indy, for example, has nothing comprable to the Central West End or even Soulard.
Indy never seemed larger to me. If it did it was because of the Chase Tower. Indy and Columbus felt about the same size to me. I have no idea how Indy feels larger than St. Louis. Maybe since it's downtown has more space that's why, and maybe because the city limits in St. Louis are only 8 miles wide and people just ignore the tall buildings immediately behind the St. Louis County/St. Louis City lines. St. Louis' downtown isn't that bad IMO, it's about as big as downtown Cleveland. You have to look at Midtown, etc....Clayton...our skyline extends beyond just downtown, which I don't think is bad at all. this is especially apparant if say for example you are bypassing it to the north on I-270....downtown appears to continue 8 miles behind it all the way to Clayton. I've been to Indy many times....it never seemed larger to me than STL at all...quite the reverse. Besides its downtown, which didn't seem to dwarf St. Louis to me, there was nothing there! There is MUCH MUCH more to a city than just its downtown, ESPECIALLY when you are talking about a city with an MSA of almost 3 million people. People forget that St. Louis is divided into two parts...ST. Louis City and St. Louis County, and technically engulfs many surrouding counties as well, both in Illinois and Missouri. Downtown St. Louis to me seemed as big as downtown Indy...just with less space. With St. Louis, at least on the Missouri side, assuming you are going east on I-64 from Chesterfield, you get very good indicators you are no longer in the country far before you get downtown, 30 miles at least Buildings of decent sizes begin to appear 30 miles from downtown...then you see Downtown Clayton, which doesn't look very small IMO at least. It's not anymore. Then you get to the Central West End, then to Midtown, then finally to downtown. With Indy, you wouldn't even know you were in a city apart from the freeways until all of a sudden downtown pops up in front of you. IMO, I have no clue why someone would conclude Indy is bigger than STL. If you include St. Louis City and St. Louis County together, St. Louis is growing at a faster rate than Indy is. This what happens when a county and its city split apart....statistics get misrepresented. People say St. Louis is the highest in crime too. Include the MSA and the statement becomes laughable. I think people need to look beyond the downtown when comparing two cities to each other. That's a pretty narrow-minded way to view a city at least in St. Louis' case. Were St. Louis City still the county seat of St. Louis County, St. Louis would be getting higher markings than it does now and Downtown Clayton and Downtown ST. Louis would be a single downtown...that would make Indy look TINY. I've always felt if you are going to compare any city to St. Louis, Cleveland makes the most sense. apart from climate, and cleveland being on a lake, st. louis being on a series of rivers, and the difference in latitude, both of these cities have striking similarities. Water transportation is a source of commerce, their downtowns are roughly the same size, their populations are the same, both pretty tie for 4th and 5th largest in the Midwest in terms of MSA sizes, both have many companies headquartered here...traffic is relatively the same, commerce is about the same size, the list goes on...Austin to Louisville is a reasonable comparison I think, well, at least besides Indy to STL. Indy's closest twin is Columbus. Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Kansas City apart seem to be far more reasonable cities to compare to St. Louis than Indy IMO. I could see why people approaching from the east towards STL would think that Indy might be larger...however approach St. Louis from the west how one could draw the conclusion of indy feeling larger I do not know. Oh well. I'm one person. In any case, as you said, we all know STL is much larger regardless of how it may "appear." Maybe it's just because I know St. Louis so well that Indy seems small to me, compared to tourists who don't set foot outside of downtown. UNlike Austin and Louisville, comparing Indy to STL is much different. Indy is less than 1 million people. STL is 3 times that size and unlike Indy does not have its downtown as its county seat. So I guess maybe it does make sense for comparison errors. Austin and Louisville statistically are more similar to one another.
I'm not sure what poverty lines have to do with being a southern state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plains10
Missouri has had a very poor record in terms of economic development in rural counties compared with states in the Midwest core. Also, larger numbers of people live in rural counties in Missouri with few jobs compared with other states in the Midwest and Plains. Missouri has many poor rural counties, but Kentucky definitiely has more of a rural poverty problem than Missouri.
Southern states generally have more poverty in rural areas than Midwestern states, so the level of poverty in a state could be a characteristic that distinguishes a Southern state from a Midwestern state.
Why does Missouri have more poverty in its rural counties than its neighboring Midwestern states. I have been reading here that even in northern Missouri, which borders Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois, there are higher levels of poverty in the rural areas than in the rural parts of the neighboring states. Why is different about Missouri that results in higher levels of poverty in the rural counties?
Southern states generally have more poverty in rural areas than Midwestern states, so the level of poverty in a state could be a characteristic that distinguishes a Southern state from a Midwestern state.
Why does Missouri have more poverty in its rural counties than its neighboring Midwestern states. I have been reading here that even in northern Missouri, which borders Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois, there are higher levels of poverty in the rural areas than in the rural parts of the neighboring states. Why is different about Missouri that results in higher levels of poverty in the rural counties?
You are telling me you would use poverty alone and nothing else to say a state is Southern? Now I've heard everything! Politics is one component of the poverty. Landscape is another. Education, which Matt Blunt is not for, is another. Landscape, education, and government define poverty, not the North or the South. Culturally, dialectwise, and climate-wise, MODERN MISSOURI AS A WHOLE IS NOT A SOUTHERN STATE, NOT EVEN CLOSE. Northern Missouri may be more impoverished than areas surrounding it, but it certainly looks like the Midwest and acts like it. Most of Central Missouri from what I've found shares similar poverty statistics to the rest of the Midwest. Population differences could be another explanation. As for it being used as a way to classify Missouri as Southern....while I agree that Southern states exhibit higher poverty characteristics than Midwestern ones in general, I just don't see how that argument alone could be used to say a state is southern or Midwestern. Landscape, educaton, and government affect a state's poverty. As is shown by Missouri, poverty has nothing to do with what region of the country a state lies in. If Missouri's region is southern, what must this say about the states due east and west of it? This should shoot down any lingering doubts about Missouri not being the Midwest....talks all about rural population growth in these states and shows Missouri to be mirroring all the patterns of the Midwestern states. Also, here is something else I happened upon about what defines a region. It should be noted that the second one describes how Missouri in particular defies categorization in some respects, while geographically, culturally, and climate-wise resembling the region of "Heartland" and "Midwest" Surprisingly Missouri and Kansas appear to have much in common with one another. Missouri being at the center of America could have to do with its statistics differing from other Midwestern states. In any event, these two sources pretty much prove Missouri to fit in better as a Midwestern state than as a Southern one, to me at least. Missouri is never compared to a southern state in either of these. Agriculture, education, landscape...all these things affect a state's poverty. Using this as a reason to classify Missouri as Southern makes no sense to me except in the southern quarter of it.
Indy never seemed larger to me. If it did it was because of the Chase Tower. Indy and Columbus felt about the same size to me. I have no idea how Indy feels larger than St. Louis. Maybe since it's downtown has more space that's why, and maybe because the city limits in St. Louis are only 8 miles wide and people just ignore the tall buildings immediately behind the St. Louis County/St. Louis City lines. St. Louis' downtown isn't that bad IMO, it's about as big as downtown Cleveland. You have to look at Midtown, etc....Clayton...our skyline extends beyond just downtown, which I don't think is bad at all. this is especially apparant if say for example you are bypassing it to the north on I-270....downtown appears to continue 8 miles behind it all the way to Clayton. I've been to Indy many times....it never seemed larger to me than STL at all...quite the reverse. Besides its downtown, which didn't seem to dwarf St. Louis to me, there was nothing there! There is MUCH MUCH more to a city than just its downtown, ESPECIALLY when you are talking about a city with an MSA of almost 3 million people. People forget that St. Louis is divided into two parts...ST. Louis City and St. Louis County, and technically engulfs many surrouding counties as well, both in Illinois and Missouri. Downtown St. Louis to me seemed as big as downtown Indy...just with less space. With St. Louis, at least on the Missouri side, assuming you are going east on I-64 from Chesterfield, you get very good indicators you are no longer in the country far before you get downtown, 30 miles at least Buildings of decent sizes begin to appear 30 miles from downtown...then you see Downtown Clayton, which doesn't look very small IMO at least. It's not anymore. Then you get to the Central West End, then to Midtown, then finally to downtown. With Indy, you wouldn't even know you were in a city apart from the freeways until all of a sudden downtown pops up in front of you. IMO, I have no clue why someone would conclude Indy is bigger than STL. If you include St. Louis City and St. Louis County together, St. Louis is growing at a faster rate than Indy is. This what happens when a county and its city split apart....statistics get misrepresented. People say St. Louis is the highest in crime too. Include the MSA and the statement becomes laughable. I think people need to look beyond the downtown when comparing two cities to each other. That's a pretty narrow-minded way to view a city at least in St. Louis' case. Were St. Louis City still the county seat of St. Louis County, St. Louis would be getting higher markings than it does now and Downtown Clayton and Downtown ST. Louis would be a single downtown...that would make Indy look TINY. I've always felt if you are going to compare any city to St. Louis, Cleveland makes the most sense. apart from climate, and cleveland being on a lake, st. louis being on a series of rivers, and the difference in latitude, both of these cities have striking similarities. Water transportation is a source of commerce, their downtowns are roughly the same size, their populations are the same, both pretty tie for 4th and 5th largest in the Midwest in terms of MSA sizes, both have many companies headquartered here...traffic is relatively the same, commerce is about the same size, the list goes on...Austin to Louisville is a reasonable comparison I think, well, at least besides Indy to STL. Indy's closest twin is Columbus. Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Kansas City apart seem to be far more reasonable cities to compare to St. Louis than Indy IMO. I could see why people approaching from the east towards STL would think that Indy might be larger...however approach St. Louis from the west how one could draw the conclusion of indy feeling larger I do not know. Oh well. I'm one person. In any case, as you said, we all know STL is much larger regardless of how it may "appear." Maybe it's just because I know St. Louis so well that Indy seems small to me, compared to tourists who don't set foot outside of downtown. UNlike Austin and Louisville, comparing Indy to STL is much different. Indy is less than 1 million people. STL is 3 times that size and unlike Indy does not have its downtown as its county seat. So I guess maybe it does make sense for comparison errors. Austin and Louisville statistically are more similar to one another.
Actually your stats are a quite a bit off again. You seem to be quoting CSAs, but anyhow, let me tell you that as of current estimates based on 2000 census data STL has a CSA of 2.86 million compared to 2 million for Indy and 1.35 million for Louisville. Indy and Louisville are much faster growing cities and MSAs and CSAs than Saint Louis city or CSA or MSA.
Now, I actually enjoy Saint Louis much more than Indy. I tend to find Indy sort of bland, but they do have a phenomonal downtown, and there is just a lot more going on in downtown Indy than downtown STL.
Also, every city has suburbs with multiple high rises. Even Louisville has 10-20 story buildings in its suburbs, one of which is a solid 10 miles from downtown.
That said, Clayton is an impressive "mini-skyline." Have you honestly spent much time in many other cities? What occasion brought you to Louisville or Indy or other regional cities?
Actually your stats are a quite a bit off again. You seem to be quoting CSAs, but anyhow, let me tell you that as of current estimates based on 2000 census data STL has a CSA of 2.86 million compared to 2 million for Indy and 1.35 million for Louisville. Indy and Louisville are much faster growing cities and MSAs and CSAs than Saint Louis city or CSA or MSA.
Now, I actually enjoy Saint Louis much more than Indy. I tend to find Indy sort of bland, but they do have a phenomonal downtown, and there is just a lot more going on in downtown Indy than downtown STL.
Also, every city has suburbs with multiple high rises. Even Louisville has 10-20 story buildings in its suburbs, one of which is a solid 10 miles from downtown.
That said, Clayton is an impressive "mini-skyline." Have you honestly spent much time in many other cities? What occasion brought you to Louisville or Indy or other regional cities?
Neither Louisville or Indy have their own suburban downtowns nor do they have 10-20 story buildings extending over 20 to 30 miles outside of the metro area. Now if you think I'm not telling the truth about that, you haven't been to St. Louis. I also have a 2005 source that shows Indy's metro area to be 1.6 million. Now who's off statistically? Regardless of whether these cities are growing faster or not than STL, it doesn't matter. STL dwarfs both of 'em. i've visited both Indy and Louisville numerous times on my way to either the southeast or Ohio, where I have relatives. I just wasn't impressed by either one, they were bland to me, as you said. i never said that Downtown indy didn't have more going on than STL, I just said I thought in size they were about as big as each other. I agree that downtown St. Louis is not the most active downtown right now but St. Louis has always been about far more than its downtown. Downtown Indy is much newer and cleaner and is one of the few Midwest cities besides Chicago and Minneapolis that has managed to escape a rustbelt reputation, unlike Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, and St. Louis. i haven't spent a lot of time in Indy or Louisville but I've seen enough of it enough to draw my own conclusions. Louisville especially didn't seem impressive at all compared to Downtown St. Louis in size at least. Both Indy and Louisville had the "blandness" you described. I'd prefer not to elaborate anymore for the sake of offending people that live there but while these cities may have more going on "downtown"....in terms of the whole city St. Louis just has far more going on I think than these two cities. i'd pick STL over Indy and Louisville anyday. Few cities I've seen in the U.S. except the really big ones besides STL or ones the size of STL, of which in terms of MSAs there are less than 20, have a suburban downtown in addition to their own downtowns (example Chicago has Evanston, Illinois, if you want to count Akron as a Cleveland suburban skyline , fine by me)... (Clayton is one of the largest suburban ones in the United States, and IMO is not a mini-skyline....it's a respectable downtown in its own right, as big as Akron at least). If it bothers you that I'm not as impressed by downtown Indy as my own downtown, sorry you feel that way, I'm not changing my mind
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.
Politics is one component of the poverty. Landscape is another. Education, which Matt Blunt is not for, is another. Landscape, education, and government define poverty, not the North or the South. Culturally, dialectwise, and climate-wise, MODERN MISSOURI AS A WHOLE IS NOT A SOUTHERN STATE, NOT EVEN CLOSE. Northern Missouri may be more impoverished than areas surrounding it, but it certainly looks like the Midwest and acts like it. Most of Central Missouri from what I've found shares similar poverty statistics to the rest of the Midwest. Population differences could be another explanation. As for it being used as a way to classify Missouri as Southern....while I agree that Southern states exhibit higher poverty characteristics than Midwestern ones in general, I just don't see how that argument alone could be used to say a state is southern or Midwestern. Landscape, educaton, and government affect a state's poverty. As is shown by Missouri, poverty has nothing to do with what region of the country a state lies in. If Missouri's region is southern, what must this say about the states due east and west of it? This should shoot down any lingering doubts about Missouri not being the Midwest....talks all about rural population growth in these states and shows Missouri to be mirroring all the patterns of the Midwestern states. Also, here is something else I happened upon about what defines a region. It should be noted that the second one describes how Missouri in particular defies categorization in some respects, while geographically, culturally, and climate-wise resembling the region of "Heartland" and "Midwest" Surprisingly Missouri and Kansas appear to have much in common with one another. Missouri being at the center of America could have to do with its statistics differing from other Midwestern states. In any event, these two sources pretty much prove Missouri to fit in better as a Midwestern state than as a Southern one, to me at least. Missouri is never compared to a southern state in either of these. Agriculture, education, landscape...all these things affect a state's poverty. Using this as a reason to classify Missouri as Southern makes no sense to me except in the southern quarter of it. 
