Does rural Kentucky hate Louisville? (Lexington, Owensboro: how much, buy, taxes)

[kingcopper]

some serious ignorance in here

[censusdata]

The last time I went to Paduach (3 years ago) I saw 5 cars with U of L tags and a similar number with UK tags, however I am not in that part of the state enough to be an expert - maybe I happened to be on the road with all 5 of Paducah's U of L fans at the same time . As a native of South Central KY I can vouch for the fact the places like Russell Springs and Columbia are at least 1/4 U of L.

Owensboro probably has the largest U of L fan base outside the metro area, lately U of L has gotten several high profile student athletes out of Daviess Co, including the 2 highest ranked baseball players in KY the past two years (Justin Marks Stewart Ijames) and Ms Kentucky basketball (Janae Howard)

The 'Bluest' city outside Lexington I have been to is Hopkinsville, probably due to all the trash talk coming from Vol fans in Clarksville, TN

[BLS2753]

I'm not a basketball fan, but all the UK games are shown on all the local cable systems in W. KY, even into far S. IL and S.E. MO. As far as major team sports, UK basketball and St. Louis Cardinals baseball dominate the region. U. of Louisville gets a 30 second highlight clip on Channel 6 in Paducah, that's about it, unless they're televised nationally.

Those license plates are more for ego-driven alumni, not necessarily rabid sport fans. Probably more Murray State alums with plates (well,frames at least) around here, but Murray's sports teams have a small core of fans.

[OboroCatfan]

Because we have athletes that sign with UL doesnt mean there is a big UL fan base here in Owensboro. It just means the school asked the guys to play there and offered them a scholarship and they accepted. As for UL fans I cant count the ones I know on one hand whereas the UK fan base in Owensboro is huge. Everyone I know is a UK fan. Why would we cheer for UL who has to get a former UK coach and players to have a decent program in basketball.

Personally it would be fine with me if Louisville became part of Ohio or even Indiana. I dont have any use for them or the other parts of the "Golden Triangle" of Lexington, Frankfort and Louisville. The people that talk about how little Louisville gets from the state need to get their sorry behinds and come to Owensboro and see what little if anything this city gets from Frankfort.

Louisville wants a new arena and the state falls all over itself finding the funding for it. Owensboro asks for help to replace the aging Sportscenter here and are told we are on our own.

Louisville wants new bridges into the downtown area and the state falls all over itself trying to find the funding for it. Owensboro just asks to have our Blue Bridge that has now become the Rust Red Bridge to be painted and repaved and its told it will take years.

Give you any idea what its like out here in "rural" Kentucky? If you are not one of the "blessed" three cities you get nothing back from the state. So its not that the rural parts of Kentucky "hate" Louisville, its that we hate the fact that even though they get so much they keep wanting more at the expense of the rest of the state.

Personally I would love to see this part of the state secede and become a separate state. We should be suing Frankfort for non-support they give us so little. I guess we should be happy they finally took the tolls off the last two toll roads in Kentucky that just happened to run right into Owensboro. Of course both of those roads are now so bad that once you drive on them you have to stop and get the frontend realigned on your vehicle.

Louisville like all major cities in the state and nation is a den for liberals. That is why one sees them voting for the likes of John Kerry and Al Gore. The rest of the state is more conservative/moderate. And as with all liberals what they get is never enough. They always wants more. Maybe that is what feeds the anti-Louisville feelings in the rest of the state.

I dont know of anyone who would want to live there. I dont even like driving through it.

[censusdata]

U of L has nearly as many students as UK does from many areas of Western Kentucky
Since both schools are 99% identical in quality of students admitted (both average 24.3 ACT last fall) this is not an apples and oranges comparison

County-----UK students---U of L students
Warren UK 253, U of L 202
Daviess UK 474, U of L 279
McCracken UK 295, U of L 163
Christian UK 160, U of L 96
Hopkins UK 139, U of L 83
Marshall UK 63, U of L 59
Calloway UK 54, U of L 50
Grayson UK 15, U of L 59
Trigg UK 19, U of L 21
Butler UK 9, U of L 13

I have the link for U of L's 2007-08 enrollment and will email it to anyone who request it. I should have it up on my webpage by this weekend
http://www.uky.edu/OPIE/FacBooklet0708.pdf

[censusdata]

Here is a Red vs Blue map (counties w/ more UK vs U of L students)

[stx12499]

Originally Posted by kentuckydad95

BINGO!!! I can get to St. Louis, Nashville, and maybe Memphis in less time. They also have alot more to offer someone who wants a big-city fix.

This is where you are seriously wrong. One of the misconceptions I have found in this state is that Louisville is "dirty" and is "smaller" and doesn't have "nearly as much to do" as surrouding regional cities. Louisville has all the big city amenities as Nashville and Memphis minus pro sports. Also, it is roughly the same size even by metro area, and Louisville is a substantially larger urban core than Nashville, for example, even though Nashville has 250,000 more in its metro:

Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The shopping is the same (none of the cities have a Saks, for example), nightlife is similar in options although markedly different in vibe (see less country/touristy), and Louisville probably even wins in the urban neighborhoods and restaurant scene.

I think the main problem with Louisville has been its "front door," ie downtown. For so many years downtown has been rundown and did not see the development that places like Nashville and Memphis did starting around 1990. Louisville's downtown today looks like downtown Memphis circa 2000. Does this make it an inferior city? By all means NO! Memphis and Nashville cannot touch the urban neighborhoods of Louisville. But as a lone tourist, you may never know that. Very few rural kentuckians have ever driven the Olmstead Parkways from what I have seen. Very few know the intricacies of Cherokee Road or the mansions on riverbluffs in Glenview and Mockingbird Valley. Very few know that even downtown, there is MUCH more to do than the bat museum and Fourth Street Live. Very few know about Underground Sounds, the legacy of the indie music scene, or the east market gallery hops. Very few know about all the different festivals and the urban gem that is Frankfort Avenue. very few women know of the dozens of boutiques all over the city; the best shopping is NOT found in Mall St Matthews but rather at these boutiques. I could go on and on.

Ironically, Louisville is much more similar to St Louis, even though it is half its size (like Nashville and Memphis). St Louis DOES have more amenities due to the metro size difference, but that does not necessarily make it the more happening city. For example, downtown STL and Louisville are roughly on the same level, and it is fair to say both are behind peers.

[JMT]

Originally Posted by censusdata

U of L has nearly as many students as UK does from many areas of Western Kentucky
Since both schools are 99% identical in quality of students admitted (both average 24.3 ACT last fall) this is not an apples and oranges comparison

County-----UK students---U of L students
Warren UK 253, U of L 202
Daviess UK 474, U of L 279
McCracken UK 295, U of L 163
Christian UK 160, U of L 96
Hopkins UK 139, U of L 83
Marshall UK 63, U of L 59
Calloway UK 54, U of L 50
Grayson UK 15, U of L 59
Trigg UK 19, U of L 21
Butler UK 9, U of L 13

I have the link for U of L's 2007-08 enrollment and will email it to anyone who request it. I should have it up on my webpage by this weekend
http://www.uky.edu/OPIE/FacBooklet0708.pdf

While that's all very interesting, I'm sure you understand that fans of a university aren't necessarily alumni of that university, particularly a state's land grant university. And since a huge chunk of the population of Kentucky (and Tennessee) don't actually go to college, the stats you gave paint only a partial picture. In other words, I'm sure there are more than 22 people out of Butler County's 13,000 who are loyal to UL or UK.

My experiences in Kentucky (Tompkinsville, Hopkinsville, Bowling Green, Somerset) show a heck of a lot more UK fans than UL fans. I think part of it is the fact that Kentucky is in the SEC and represents the entire state of Kentucky when Kentucky plays Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Arkansas, etc., rather than "city" schools such as Louisville, Memphis, Cincinnati, Charlotte, etc.

In addition, the Kentucky license plate looks suspiciously like something designed by someone from Lexington instead of Louisville.

[BLS2753]

Originally Posted by stx12499

This is where you are seriously wrong. One of the misconceptions I have found in this state is that Louisville is "dirty" and is "smaller" and doesn't have "nearly as much to do" as surrouding regional cities. Louisville has all the big city amenities as Nashville and Memphis minus pro sports. Also, it is roughly the same size even by metro area, and Louisville is a substantially larger urban core than Nashville, for example, even though Nashville has 250,000 more in its metro:

Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The shopping is the same (none of the cities have a Saks, for example), nightlife is similar in options although markedly different in vibe (see less country/touristy), and Louisville probably even wins in the urban neighborhoods and restaurant scene.

I think the main problem with Louisville has been its "front door," ie downtown. For so many years downtown has been rundown and did not see the development that places like Nashville and Memphis did starting around 1990. Louisville's downtown today looks like downtown Memphis circa 2000. Does this make it an inferior city? By all means NO! Memphis and Nashville cannot touch the urban neighborhoods of Louisville. But as a lone tourist, you may never know that. Very few rural kentuckians have ever driven the Olmstead Parkways from what I have seen. Very few know the intricacies of Cherokee Road or the mansions on riverbluffs in Glenview and Mockingbird Valley. Very few know that even downtown, there is MUCH more to do than the bat museum and Fourth Street Live. Very few know about Underground Sounds, the legacy of the indie music scene, or the east market gallery hops. Very few know about all the different festivals and the urban gem that is Frankfort Avenue. very few women know of the dozens of boutiques all over the city; the best shopping is NOT found in Mall St Matthews but rather at these boutiques. I could go on and on.

Ironically, Louisville is much more similar to St Louis, even though it is half its size (like Nashville and Memphis). St Louis DOES have more amenities due to the metro size difference, but that does not necessarily make it the more happening city. For example, downtown STL and Louisville are roughly on the same level, and it is fair to say both are behind peers.

I think what we're saying is that Louisville's lack of geographic proximity to far Western KY, doesn't lend itself well to "day trips" like Nashville and St. Louis. Louisville would be more of a weekend destination. But for a weekend "city" experience, Atlanta and Chicago aren't much further, and offer a whole lot more than any of the other cities in the midwest or south.

[Hey_Hey]

Originally Posted by stx12499

This is where you are seriously wrong. One of the misconceptions I have found in this state is that Louisville is "dirty" and is "smaller" and doesn't have "nearly as much to do" as surrouding regional cities. Louisville has all the big city amenities as Nashville and Memphis minus pro sports. Also, it is roughly the same size even by metro area, and Louisville is a substantially larger urban core than Nashville, for example, even though Nashville has 250,000 more in its metro:

Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The shopping is the same (none of the cities have a Saks, for example), nightlife is similar in options although markedly different in vibe (see less country/touristy), and Louisville probably even wins in the urban neighborhoods and restaurant scene.

I think the main problem with Louisville has been its "front door," ie downtown. For so many years downtown has been rundown and did not see the development that places like Nashville and Memphis did starting around 1990. Louisville's downtown today looks like downtown Memphis circa 2000. Does this make it an inferior city? By all means NO! Memphis and Nashville cannot touch the urban neighborhoods of Louisville. But as a lone tourist, you may never know that. Very few rural kentuckians have ever driven the Olmstead Parkways from what I have seen. Very few know the intricacies of Cherokee Road or the mansions on riverbluffs in Glenview and Mockingbird Valley. Very few know that even downtown, there is MUCH more to do than the bat museum and Fourth Street Live. Very few know about Underground Sounds, the legacy of the indie music scene, or the east market gallery hops. Very few know about all the different festivals and the urban gem that is Frankfort Avenue. very few women know of the dozens of boutiques all over the city; the best shopping is NOT found in Mall St Matthews but rather at these boutiques. I could go on and on.

Ironically, Louisville is much more similar to St Louis, even though it is half its size (like Nashville and Memphis). St Louis DOES have more amenities due to the metro size difference, but that does not necessarily make it the more happening city. For example, downtown STL and Louisville are roughly on the same level, and it is fair to say both are behind peers.

Louisville and Memphis are almost exactly alike in my experience. Very, very close in MSA population with a couple of malls that are actually worth something. Nashville does offer much more shopping than either Louisville or Memphis, and has a high-end component that neither city has in Green Hills Mall and the surrounding area (this has been a development in the last 5 years) that is on the same level as Frontenac in St. Louis.

Nashville, Memphis, and Louisville's downtown are all a bit smaller than St. Louis but each has more going on entertainment-wise (minus gamedays at Busch). As far as entertainment activity downtown Memphis is the run away winner with Nashville closing in on its heels and Louisville not far behind either. St. Louis seems dead at night if there isn't a game that day.

Nashville is definitely not as dense as Louisville as a whole, but Nashville is creating a "second downtown" that Louisville doesn't have presently. The area around Vanderbilt is turning into a very urban environment that mixes office/residential/educational/healthcare/entertainment seamlessly. Nashville's neighborhoods will never been as dense as Louisville's because of the time period that each developed. Louisville's neighborhoods developmed 20-30 years before Nashville's when smaller lots were the norm.