Lexington, KY vs. Louisville, KY: Which is the better city?

[missymomof3]

My husband and I drove the backroads towards Lexington on our way to Versailles and oh man if you haven't done it do it! What a beautiful drive! We also stopped in Nicholasville and Wilmore and though pretty there was nothing to do. I tell ya, backroads driving is so much better than the interstate!

[atlantagreg30127]

Originally Posted by highliner

Did someone really say that Lexington-Fayette County is riverless? UM, guys, we got one, and its called, ironically enough, The Kentucky River, FYI.

I believe they were refering to the fact that downtown Lexington does not directly sit on a river, such as Louisville, etc.

[stx12499]

Originally Posted by highliner

Did someone really say that Lexington-Fayette County is riverless? UM, guys, we got one, and its called, ironically enough, The Kentucky River, FYI.

The KY river is not in Lexington, and is actually south of Nicholasville. Compared to the Ohio River, the KY river is a stream anyways. In fact, it is a tributary of the Ohio. Cities with downtowns on a river are much more picturesque in my opinion. Saint Louis, Louisville, and Cincinnati are prime examples, as well as Pittsburgh. In fact, most cities have a downtown set up on a major waterfront of some sorts, whether a lake, ocean, or river. Lexington has none of these.

[rnc76]

Originally Posted by stx12499

The KY river is not in Lexington, and is actually south of Nicholasville. Compared to the Ohio River, the KY river is a stream anyways. In fact, it is a tributary of the Ohio. Cities with downtowns on a river are much more picturesque in my opinion. Saint Louis, Louisville, and Cincinnati are prime examples, as well as Pittsburgh. In fact, most cities have a downtown set up on a major waterfront of some sorts, whether a lake, ocean, or river. Lexington has none of these.

The Kentucky River does border southern Fayette County for a brief bit. In fact, I've stood on the bluffs overlooking the river in Raven Run Nature Sanctuary many times. I know what you are saying though, it isn't the same as the downtown being on the river.

[nlschr0]

Originally Posted by stx12499

The KY river is not in Lexington, and is actually south of Nicholasville. Compared to the Ohio River, the KY river is a stream anyways. In fact, it is a tributary of the Ohio. Cities with downtowns on a river are much more picturesque in my opinion. Saint Louis, Louisville, and Cincinnati are prime examples, as well as Pittsburgh. In fact, most cities have a downtown set up on a major waterfront of some sorts, whether a lake, ocean, or river. Lexington has none of these.

I can actually think of quite a few cities that aren't on a major waterway - Atlanta, Denver, Birmingham, Raleigh, Santa Fe, Las Vegas, Birmingham, etc...and several that have minor rivers that add scenery but not major transport throughways (Indianapolis, Columbus, Nashville, etc...) Obviously, water access is historically important to economic and industrial development of a city, but I don't think it is a reasonable measure of a city's potential impact or success.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the major river areas. Perhaps it is jaded by childhood memories of watching the dying birds along the banks of the polluted Delaware, but I prefer large, open lakes and ocean any day. Of course, there's not much potential for that in KY, so we do enjoy time along several of the scenic lakes and and the wild rivers throughout the state. To each his/her own, as always.

[watchmanonthewall]

Both would be great places to live. To me it comes down to this. Louisville is no Atlanta, but Louisville is a big city. It feels big and does things on a big city scale. Lexington is a good sized city by anyone's standard but it doesn't give you that big city feel. So, if you are a New York state of mind type, then you will prefer Louisville. On the other hand, if you want to live in good sized city but not feel that big city vibe then Lexington is your place. I prefer Louisville.

[stx12499]

Originally Posted by nlschr0

I can actually think of quite a few cities that aren't on a major waterway - Atlanta, Denver, Birmingham, Raleigh, Santa Fe, Las Vegas, Birmingham, etc...and several that have minor rivers that add scenery but not major transport throughways (Indianapolis, Columbus, Nashville, etc...) Obviously, water access is historically important to economic and industrial development of a city, but I don't think it is a reasonable measure of a city's potential impact or success.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the major river areas. Perhaps it is jaded by childhood memories of watching the dying birds along the banks of the polluted Delaware, but I prefer large, open lakes and ocean any day. Of course, there's not much potential for that in KY, so we do enjoy time along several of the scenic lakes and and the wild rivers throughout the state. To each his/her own, as always.

Not anymore....but until the mid twentieth centruy or so, being on a waterway was CRUCIAL to a city's development. All of the large cities not on water are post war phenomenons. The others were built as railroad hubs, and Birmingham and Indianapolis are great examples. Las Vegas was a deserted ranch in 1950. Atlanta was small beans. Santa Fe? nope. Denver boomed in the 80's. Did you know that Louisville was larger than Atlanta until somewhere around 1960 or 1970? And I am talking metro wise, not just city population. Now Atlanta is expected to add efectively another "Louisville" to its metro population this decade alone! That kind of growth is insane!

[highliner]

I just looked at my ever trusty 1963 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia, which lists the city of Atlanta as having a population of 487,000 people, and the city of Louisville as having 390,000. Also, however you got the impression that the Cumberland River from Nashville westward is not a major transportation route, or that river barge transportation is no longer a major part of the American economy, let me assure you that such is not the case. While it is true that the Kentucky River does not flow through downtown Lexington, it does form the boundary between Fayette and Madison Counties, and is of sufficient depth and breadth for the US federal government to list it as being commercially navigable, although Frankfort is the furthest city receiving barge service at this time.

[stx12499]

Originally Posted by highliner

I just looked at my ever trusty 1963 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia, which lists the city of Atlanta as having a population of 487,000 people, and the city of Louisville as having 390,000. Also, however you got the impression that the Cumberland River from Nashville westward is not a major transportation route, or that river barge transportation is no longer a major part of the American economy, let me assure you that such is not the case. While it is true that the Kentucky River does not flow through downtown Lexington, it does form the boundary between Fayette and Madison Counties, and is of sufficient depth and breadth for the US federal government to list it as being commercially navigable, although Frankfort is the furthest city receiving barge service at this time.

No, not really. Atlanta had twice the land area as Louisville and thus a larger population. Louisville was a much bigger, denser city, even in 1960:


rank city pop sq mi density/sq mile
24 Atlanta city, GA......... 487,455 128.2 3,802
25 Minneapolis city, MN..... 482,872 56.5 8,546
26 Indianapolis city, IN.... 476,258 71.2 6,689
27 Kansas City city, MO..... 475,539 129.8 3,664
28 Columbus city, OH........ 471,316 89.0 5,296
29 Phoenix city, AZ......... 439,170 187.4 2,343
30 Newark city, NJ.......... 405,220 23.6 17,170

31 Louisville city, KY...... 390,639 57.1 6,841


To give you an analogy, Louisville is TECHNICALLY one of teh largest cities in America today with a population of over 700k. However, since this population includes the entire county, it has a massive land area and is thus not fair to compare to cities that do not cover the same geographic area.

[highliner]

Atlanta proper is/was the basis for the comparison, and the size of the land area is quite irrelevant. For example, using your logic, we must assume that Wyoming is far more populous than Illinois, owing solely to its greater land mass.