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.
[quote=Mutiny77;43764280]Not really: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Churches And that list doesn't include cities with related nicknames, such as Charleston which is known as the Holy City because of the numerous church steeples which comprise the historic skyline.
Eh...yes really.
The original comment was that it was applicable to "all southern cities". I was simply pointing out that the nickname did apply to Charlotte and had history specifically to Charlotte. You're right that it is not necessarily solely or uniquely attributed to Charlotte, but it does specifically apply to Charlotte. To say that it is true for the South, and not a nickname Charlotte garnered would be incorrect.
I think we would agree and that your confusion came from my lack of inclusion of the first comment.
I think it best to be without than contrived...they already have it: Nascar and Banking, that's enough. What's Columbus, OH or Indianapolis' true identity? What about Des Moines, Sacramento, Salt Lake or Little Rock? All I know about Phoenix is that it is hotter than hell. Fake ass LA? What about Houston?...Houston we have a problem or Cambridge we have a problem. Actually, Cambridge, MA was set to be NASA's research hub before Houston but plans changed after JFK's assassination. Learnt bout that on a tour in Boston where the guide kindly pointed out where JFK had planned to build it in Cambridge, of course plans changed once LBJ (Texan) took office. Remember Kennedy was the race to space prez.
What about Minneapolis? I'm older and do recall the Mary Tyler Moore show and that great big mall. Some so-called identities were acquired over time for economic (Detroit) or entertainment (Nashville) reasons. Is it more in need of a sexier identity or an icon...or both. I think an icon be better..space needle, arch, etc. How about a 300 foot statue of a $100 dollar bill laced in gold and grills to symbolize Charlotte's financial and southern heritage, lol.
Charlotte already has an identity.
I agree with most of this but Houston does have an identity. They have Oil/Gas and are known for it. LA has Hollywood/entertainment, Disneyland, and other things it has an identity. Columbus is a capital city with a huge college, but not much of an identity, Indy has motor sports and monuments. Every city has an identity but most newer boom cities wont have that true charm/identity like a Chicago, New York, or Philadelphia.
This thread is ridiculous. All it proves to highlight is that many Charlotteans are insecure about the city's stature and disagree on which aspect of our city is most valuable. There is a long history of Charlotte wanting to be considered "world class" while still retaining the values all of us know make southern towns great. Balancing the two is a difficult task.
Charlotte's got a lot. The reason there is so much disagreement is related to the lack of appreciation for our history, the amount and speed of growth, and diversity of our region. It's ironically probably a healthy sign to have so much confusion over what makes us great.
The original comment was that it was applicable to "all southern cities". I was simply pointing out that the nickname did apply to Charlotte and had history specifically to Charlotte. You're right that it is not necessarily solely or uniquely attributed to Charlotte, but it does specifically apply to Charlotte. To say that it is true for the South, and not a nickname Charlotte garnered would be incorrect.
I think we would agree and that your confusion came from my lack of inclusion of the first comment.
I see what you're saying, but truthfully it's nothing unique (and I'm not saying that you're saying as much). Lots of other cities are probably referred to as such colloquially; when I lived in the Philly area, I was surprised by the number of beautiful, historic churches in that city.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,666,340 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
I see what you're saying, but truthfully it's nothing unique (and I'm not saying that you're saying as much). Lots of other cities are probably referred to as such colloquially; when I lived in the Philly area, I was surprised by the number of beautiful, historic churches in that city.
There are some very historic churches in Philadelphia, but it was founded on Quaker values. Tolerance is the big one. So it's called the Quaker City, although the Quakers have been outnumbered for almost 400 years.
I see what you're saying, but truthfully it's nothing unique (and I'm not saying that you're saying as much). Lots of other cities are probably referred to as such colloquially; when I lived in the Philly area, I was surprised by the number of beautiful, historic churches in that city.
Philadelphia does have some beautiful churches. Charlotte's historic churches and buildings do not compare in #.
What is true and tied to the original nickname is that Charlotte was believed to have one the highest church per capita measures in the world.
In 1940 Charlotte had 146 churches for 100,000 people. Do you think Philadelphia had 146 churches when their population was 100,000? This is 1 church for every 684 people.
This list has us at #8 based on current counts. Philadelphia isn't on the list. If we had maintained the same rate we would have been in the top 3 in the country. It's a reputation earned based on truth of churches per person, not just colloquial banter.
In 1940 Charlotte had 146 churches for 100,000 people. Do you think Philadelphia had 146 churches when their population was 100,000? This is 1 church for every 684 people.
This list has us at #8 based on current counts. Philadelphia isn't on the list. If we had maintained the same rate we would have been in the top 3 in the country. It's a reputation earned based on truth of churches per person, not just colloquial banter.
When Philadelphia had a population of 100,000, it was probably before the consolidation. If that was the case there would have been a very high church to resident percentage, if you also counted the Quaker meeting houses with the churches.
My guess is the meeting houses didn't count as churches. Should they be? Does it matter? What does it have to do with Charlotte? Are you saying that Charlotte didn't actually have a high # of churches per person?
Recognizing Charlotte history doesn't take anything away from the other cities mentioned or Philadelphia. The only reason we hear so much about Philadelphia on this board is because so many people moved here from there.
The poster that said it was true about the entire south and I just made the point that there is actually some specific Charlotte church history to be recognized. The response minimizing this connection and talking about other cities is weird. I'm not sure what's wrong with learning that Charlotte has a history of high churches per capita. It's ok to admit it. It's not just a colloquial phenomenon. It's still true in a way today since we have the 8th highest in the country.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,666,340 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essequamvideri
My guess is the meeting houses didn't count as churches. Should they be? Does it matter? What does it have to do with Charlotte? Are you saying that Charlotte didn't actually have a high # of churches per person?
Recognizing Charlotte history doesn't take anything away from the other cities mentioned or Philadelphia. The only reason we hear so much about Philadelphia on this board is because so many people moved here from there.
The poster that said it was true about the entire south and I just made the point that there is actually some specific Charlotte church history to be recognized. The response minimizing this connection and talking about other cities is weird. I'm not sure what's wrong with learning that Charlotte has a history of high churches per capita. It's ok to admit it. It's not just a colloquial phenomenon. It's still true in a way today since we have the 8th highest in the country.
You asked a question & I answered it to the best of my ability without digging too much & without going into much detail. I never disputed the number of churches in Charlotte. This area has long ties to Philadelphia, going back to the original settlers of the area.
I agree with most of this but Houston does have an identity. They have Oil/Gas and are known for it.
This is true, but of the South's Big Four (Atlanta, DFW, Houston, Miami), Houston probably has the weakest identity. Come to think of it, cities mostly known for a pillar of the local economy, tourism and entertainment excepted, and not much else tend to have somewhat weak identities.
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.
