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.
if you would stop assuming that i don't know what i'm talking about and/or haven't educated myself on the subject before replying then you would be better off.
transportation wise, they were not similar at all. NY had the first street car line in the country. while n.o. followed, where was the subway? we had elevated lines in the 1870s, iirc. we had subway lines in the very early 1900s.
weren't ppl in n.o. still riding street cars, perhaps with horses attached to the fronts to pull them while ppl here were riding trains to/from work?
check this video from the 1920s
i shouldn't have to speak on the harlem renaissance...
but n.o. has nothing on the metropolitan opera house or carnegie hall, or radio city music hall or broadway...and what it meant for music or acting on a global scale.
as far as classical music (i know its not jazz and what n.o. meant to jazz at the time), there is no comparison with the NY philharmonic.
fast forward a lot and NY is responsible for salsa, disco, hip hop, doo wop, punk rock (within the u.s.), etc.
what department stores were founded in n.o. and are as big as macy's??
what is n.o.'s equivalent to coney island? the world fair?
what is n.o's equivalent to schools like juliard?
what about being the media capital of the south? is new orleans and/or was new orleans the media capital at one time of its region??
financial capital of its region?
what about sports...baseball? basketball? football? how does new orleans compare with the history of new york and sports and what it meant for this country and for the world??
as far as ethnicities, we had the dutch, the irish, the jewish, the polish, italians, etc. so maybe n.o. had some of these groups (and others) too but so did cities such as chicago. does that make chicago the NY of its region? no. chicago is the chicago of its region.
how did the term melting pot get created and what was it used to describe? new orleans? NOPE.
what is n.o.'s equivalent to ellis island?
what is n.o.'s contribution to fashion within its region??
etc. etc.
educate yourself before assuming that somebody else doesn't know what they're talking about. there is no comparison between these two cities that warrants the title of ny of the south being given to n.o.
new orleans is new orleans and new york is new york. why is that so bad?
SERIOUSLY DUDE. I agree with you about this thread being an insult to both cities, and I know you are only replying to those who said they had similarities, but you need to face the fact that New Orleans WAS nicknamed 'the New York of the South' whether you believe that's an earned name or not. I know you feel there is a need to be right here, but is there really the need to give us long rants, sometimes two in a row?
its not a rant. its a direct response to the dude that said that i didn't know what i was talking about (observation. check the last page).
since it wasn't addressed to you, you could have ignored it and/or waited til somebody posted after me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceTenmile
SERIOUSLY DUDE. I agree with you about this thread being an insult to both cities, and I know you are only replying to those who said they had similarities, but
shoulda been no buts. you should have left it at that.
Stop comparing the physical attributes. It's a swamp, why in the WORLD would they build subways? And you once again are pointing out all the differences, point out the similarities, read it a couple times and see if you can at least accept the fact that it was called that. Seems like your trying to change history, and its not a matter of putting NO on a pedestal by saying its like NYC, it just happens to have some of the same things that NYC has. I don't really feel like bickering back and forth, I never thought this thread would get this long..
The French Opera House was opened in 1859, and the city has been having performances since the 1700s. It was the richest city in the region also. I don't think Macy's is much to brag about, that's like Arkansas flexing about Wal-Mart.
its not a rant. its a direct response to the dude that said that i didn't know what i was talking about (observation. check the last page).
since it wasn't addressed to you, you could have ignored it and/or waited til somebody posted after me.
shoulda been no buts. you should have left it at that.
Sorry, did you really just tell me I SHOULD have just agreed with you and left it at that? I don't think that's your call. I'll agree or disagree whenever I like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself
Stop comparing the physical attributes. It's a swamp, why in the WORLD would they build subways? And you once again are pointing out all the differences, point out the similarities, read it a couple times and see if you can at least accept the fact that it was called that. Seems like your trying to change history, and its not a matter of putting NO on a pedestal by saying its like NYC, it just happens to have some of the same things that NYC has. I don't really feel like bickering back and forth, I never thought this thread would get this long..
The French Opera House was opened in 1859, and the city has been having performances since the 1700s. It was the richest city in the region also. I don't think Macy's is much to brag about, that's like Arkansas flexing about Wal-Mart.
Ahh well, this was fun enough..
That's the way to look at it. There are always two sides to every coin and there are enough variables in this discussion to put a decent case either for or against their similarity by simply ignoring the opposition's evidence.
being that the post wasn't directed at you at all and it was a direct response to another poster, yes, keep it moving. you said it yourself in your post that it was a response to other ppl so what would be the point of you calling it a rant when it clearly wasn't?
being that the post wasn't directed at you at all and it was a direct response to another poster, yes, keep it moving. you said it yourself in your post that it was a response to other ppl so what would be the point of you calling it a rant when it clearly wasn't?
Oh no, you're right, I shouldn't have responded to you when you weren't talking to me. My mistake. I should speak when I am spoken to. You are apparently the fuhrer of the forum. I won't respond to you again and if I do feel the urge I'll make sure I only agree and don't show any signs of dissent.
Since eek has established that there are no equivalents to NYC or NO in their perspective regions, should we just abolish all of the 'city vs. city' comparisons, as to establish the fact that no two cities are perfectly alike?
eek seems to be unable to get past the physical comparisons of the two cities. I think the main point of this thread was that at one time New Orleans was the dominant center of the South, in much the same way that New York was the dominant center of the Northeast. The cities didn't look alike. They didn't have the same population. They weren't built the same way. Their culture was much different. THAT WAS NEVER THE POINT.
No one is going to argue that any city looks or feels like NYC, but it is a fair comparison to say that in the past, New Orleans had the same significance to the South that New York had to the Northeast, hence the moniker "the New York of the South." Same could currently be said about LA to the West (or, San Francisco back in the day) and Chicago to the Midwest.
you can respond if you want but i was questioning the choice of the response.
the post you quoted wasn't directed at you.
the post wasn't a rant at all but a direct response to the person talking about research.
the post had facts in it.
etc. etc.
rather than a long rant, the post was about things that NY had and i was questioning whether or not if N.O. had similar things which would warrant it being called the NY of its region...which in a lot of those cases, it did not.
you and others don't have to make it into something it is not.
Since eek has established that there are no equivalents to NYC or NO in their perspective regions, should we just abolish all of the 'city vs. city' comparisons, as to establish the fact that no two cities are perfectly alike?
eek seems to be unable to get past the physical comparisons of the two cities. I think the main point of this thread was that at one time New Orleans was the dominant center of the South, in much the same way that New York was the dominant center of the Northeast. The cities didn't look alike. They didn't have the same population. They weren't built the same way. Their culture was much different. THAT WAS NEVER THE POINT.
No one is going to argue that any city looks or feels like NYC, but it is a fair comparison to say that in the past, New Orleans had the same significance to the South that New York had to the Northeast, hence the moniker "the New York of the South." Same could currently be said about LA to the West (or, San Francisco back in the day) and Chicago to the Midwest.
Since eek has established that there are no equivalents to NYC or NO in their perspective regions, should we just abolish all of the 'city vs. city' comparisons, as to establish the fact that no two cities are perfectly alike?
eek seems to be unable to get past the physical comparisons of the two cities. I think the main point of this thread was that at one time New Orleans was the dominant center of the South, in much the same way that New York was the dominant center of the Northeast. The cities didn't look alike. They didn't have the same population. They weren't built the same way. Their culture was much different. THAT WAS NEVER THE POINT.
No one is going to argue that any city looks or feels like NYC, but it is a fair comparison to say that in the past, New Orleans had the same significance to the South that New York had to the Northeast, hence the moniker "the New York of the South." Same could currently be said about LA to the West (or, San Francisco back in the day) and Chicago to the Midwest.
NY being NY is bigger than physical attributes.
and i even mentioned some of these attributes in a previous post. but since ppl are skimming posts, they would only point out the physical attributes of NY, wouldn't they?
they would ignore the elevated lines, the carnegie halls, the NY philharmonics, the broadways, the harlem renaissances, the ellis islands, the financial aspect, the fashion aspect, the media aspect, contributions to pop culture, contributions to culture within the country in general and from a global perspective, etc. etc.
its ok to have city vs city. most of my posts on this site are from this section so i have to enjoy reading some of these topics...but some of these comparisons are ridiculous.
at the end of the day, why is it so hard for ppl to accept their respective cities? whats wrong with new orleans, or houston, or atlanta, or los angeles, or chicago, or _____ that it has to be compared to another city and that ppl HAVE to agree with you on the comparison otherwise they're upset, vexed, irate, etc.?
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.
