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.
The reason an openly gay person would likely not succeed in being elected to political office in Charlotte is, in my opinion, because that would not represent any sort of majority of our population. I'm not saying that there aren't gay folks in town here...I'm saying that if you had to pin an accurate representation on our population, it would not be a gay lifestyle...like it or not, that's the truth...and as this thread is discussing, a lot of us are just fine like that and don't wish to rock the boat to some extreme side for the sake of being accommodating to one specific group.
Now, let me come down out of my perfect world and acknowledge the fact that while politicians are supposed to be representative of the population they serve, this hardly happens for a myriad of reasons. But that certainly does not give credence to electing a gay person to office just so we can put a check in the box next to "if you want to be cool and progressive, put an openly gay person in office." Similar to what we see with many political elections, once all the fanfare and hooplah wears off and it's time to get down to business and actually make decisions that steer the community/city/county/state/country (presumably for the better), the true worthiness of the individual is exposed--and more often than not, when a seat is won on the coat tails of a gimmick campaign (yes, I'm calling running on a platform of "I'm openly gay" a plain and simple gimmick since it has nothing to do with anything related to how well you can run a government), the effects of that person's tenure are less than desireable, if not completely disastrous. I could give some case examples, but in the interest of not getting this thread the Master Lock treatment, I'll refrain.
Maybe my earlier comments were lost amidst all the other opinions . . . but I would like to ask again - in all sincerity - what does a city do to be more gay-friendly?
As I said earlier . . . seems to me people go to a city b/c they find things in that city that interest them. When I want to go to museums and see specific types of exhibits, I know which cities to choose or I select a city b/c of an exhibit that is running at that time.
And if I want to shop, I am going to go where there is retail that matches up to my expectations. For some folks that may be Orlando with their acres of "outlets" or it may be NYC with its boutiques and designer shops or it may be LA w/ Rodeo Drive.
But it sure isn't gonna be that I chose a city to go to because it makes me feel comfortable about my sexuality. Who the heck even THINKS about that?
Now, if what I am wanting is something sexually oriented - such as an upscale Gentleman's Club (y'all know I mean topless, right?) then I guess I am gonna want to know what cities have the best topless clubs. Does this mean that a city is considered "gay friendly" depending on how many gay clubs it has?
Does that mean if a city has lots of day care centers it is "family friendly?" I guess I would like to know the list of criteria that make a city "anything" friendly.
Another poster said Charlotte received the designation of being "walking friendly." I would NEVER have given that designation to Charlotte, lol! I think this city is horrible for walking in most areas - and we won't even talk about how biking UNfriendly the city is . . . There may be spots that are pedestrian friendly but as for the whole city . . . not hardly.
I guess my thing is - we are all impacted by advertising. And these "tags" are just dreamed up by some writer, editor, creative director sitting in a room somewhere. Who takes this stuff seriously???
I don't have time to look it up now, but I remember a study a few years ago that talked about cities that were thriving and growing, and one component they all shared, was that they were welcoming and supportive of the "creative class" - of which gay people are considered a part. I remember discussions about whether Charlotte is supportive, what we might do to improve, etc.
It's important to note that it's not anyone clamoring for special treatment, or any kind of red carpet... it's marketing folks looking at what's working in certain areas and towns, and noting, "Hey! They're making a lot of money because of *this*, maybe you should try it!"
but I remember a study a few years ago that talked about cities that were thriving and growing, and one component they all shared, was that they were welcoming and supportive of the "creative class" - of which gay people are considered a part. I remember discussions about whether Charlotte is supportive, what we might do to improve, etc.
The thing is that a few years ago, Charlotte was one of the top three fastest growing large cities (over 500,000) in the U.S. So, I guess we were doing something right.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,670,113 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tober138
What if the city of Charlotte ran an ad campaign marketing the city as a "family-friendly" tourist destination - a clip with mom, dad, and little Dick and Jane? Is that pretentious? I guess I just don't see the big deal.
The official Charlotte tourism bureau (www.charlottecvb.org) is promoting the fact that, "Prevention Magazine recently named the Queen City the best “Walking City†in North Carolina." Wow - the city is targeting people who like to walk. How pretentious.
Here is a commercial from the official Philadelphia Visitor's Site: Philly was one of the first major cities to produce a sommercial targeting gay / lesbian tourists.
The city of L.A. is also targeting this particular tourism market.
Los Angeles Launches Gay and Lesbian Travel Guide. | Humanities & Social Science > Literature from AllBusiness.com (http://www.allbusiness.com/humanities-social-science/literature-literature-genres/12634282-1.html - broken link)
I guess I just don't see the big deal.
I don't think that you quite get that Philly ad. It is aimed to gays in their late 50s & older & it is saying that Philly has changed & is OK for them to visit without fear. I doubt that you have any concept of what went on in Philly, years ago. There was a lot of public discussion in Philly about some of these targeted ads, but it was finally decided to do them to try to undo damage done long ago when Rizzo was chief of police & when he was mayor.
Charlotte does not have the reputation that Philly had acquired with certain groups. Therefore what's the point of targeting someone for special marketing?
[quote=Tober138;11404630]What if the city of Charlotte ran an ad campaign marketing the city as a "family-friendly" tourist destination - a clip with mom, dad, and little Dick and Jane? Is that pretentious? I guess I just don't see the big deal.
No, it would not be pretentious as it would depect American life. How could it be pretentious? Who knows, Dick and Jane could be flammers.
The official Charlotte tourism bureau (www.chaWorlottecvb.org) is promoting the fact that, "Prevention Magazine recently named the Queen City the best “Walking City” in North Carolina." Wow - the city is targeting people who like to walk. How pretentious.
Your points are getting weird. What does the Prevention Magazine article have to do with the discussion? It is about health. It was not a Chamber of Commerce ad to recruit immigrants for other places. Why don't we just advertise for "all" people? Woops!! Forgot, we already do that
Here is a commercial from the official Philadelphia Visitor's Site: Philly was one of the first major cities to produce a sommercial targeting gay / lesbian tourists. Unless I have been lied to, Charlotte has been getting more newcomers to the city than Phili for quite some time. If a general advertisement seems to descriminate against a certain group for not specifically mentioning them by label, so be it. Everyone can't be reasonable and intelligent.
..."creative class" - of which gay people are considered a part...
Hang on a second...tap the brakes here. I know you (CharlotteGal) did not come up with this, so this isn't directed at you...
Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot? Why are gay folks all lumped into a "creative class?" Who says that just because they're gay means they're creative??
I hate this about the "art community." You have to be extreme and way out there, far from "normal" (where, I remind you, lots of folks are just fine being) to be considered artistic or creative. I've been known to throw down a drawing or two and can pretty much hold my own creative weight when properly motivated and inspired, and (you may want to sit down for this one) I've even played in a band and drummed up some original music before...but *GASP* I would probably be labeled a conservative and put into the "normal" category which completely negates any shred of creative street credibility. Makes me sick, really. This is part of the reason my wife can't stand to go into an art gallery with me...I quickly reach my boiling point when presented with a crowd of people tripping over themselves trying so hard to be different (and in some cases blatantly gay) just to fit into the crowd.
OK - found what I was talking about! In 2002, urban studies author Richard Florida published a book called "Rise of the Creative Class". He came to speak at UNCC in 2005, leading to a lot of speculation in Charlotte as to whether we were courting the "creative class" enough. In looking at the Observer archive titles (can't afford to pay for the full articles!), there were focus groups formed, polls taken in the paper, etc. His theory, from my good friend Wikipedia:
Quote:
Prof. Florida's theory asserts that metropolitan regions with high concentrations of high-tech workers, artists, musicians, lesbians and gay men, and a group he describes as "high bohemians", correlate with a higher level of economic development. Florida posits the theory that the creative class fosters an open, dynamic, personal and professional environment. This environment, in turn, attracts more creative people, as well as businesses and capital. He suggests that attracting and retaining high-quality talent, versus a singular focus on infrastructure projects such as sports stadiums, iconic buildings, and shopping centers, would be a better primary use of a city's regeneration resources for long-term prosperity.
If you google "creative class" you'll see a lot of energy being expended on this idea. It doesn't look like it's just from the one author, several studies have shown the same thing. If you watched Will & Grace, you remember the episode where Will & Jack think they've bought a house in an up-and-coming gay hot spot. When it ends up they bought in the wrong city, the locals want them to stay. "Everybody knows when the gays start moving in, property values go up!" Just a TV show, but I think it reflects... well, something. Prevailing views?
I could argue all day long about the retaining of artsy type people versus infrastructure types for pong term prosperity of a city. Let me first state my biasedness as an engineer!
Go visit NoDa or any other art community in any other US city. Take notice of trashy the areas are...how run down they become...how uncool it is to have a nice looking place or a solid productive job. Not saying art can't be productive, but there's a reason that it's very difficult to become productive with a job based in art (not everyone can be an artist). This image that I get says to me that crowd of people don't much care for the long term growth and propsperity of thier city.
Now, focus on professional types and bring large scale projects to town and the job generation and long term impacts are overflowing. From engineers to marketing folks to construction folks, to financing folks...the list goes on and on...all to support a thriving professional environment. I could seriously write an essay about how infrastructure projects are truly a golden ticket in terms of stimulating a faltering economy and even maintaining a thriving growth.
But I'll be the first to admit that the world would be a pretty boring place with a population full of people like me. I'm awesome and stuff ( ) but there'd be a noticable lack of something in a lot of categories that I'm not (using me as a very generic example). Therefore, we do need the "creative community" to help bring a region full circle and keep a place growing and thriving.
Long story short, I don't think any one group could be pinned as absolutely vital for a regions survival. Some may be stronger than others or more benficial, but to assert that one group brings a higher level of economic development is erronous.
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.
) but there'd be a noticable lack of something in a lot of categories that I'm not (using me as a very generic example). Therefore, we do need the "creative community" to help bring a region full circle and keep a place growing and thriving.
