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.
I'm not sure how you could argue that the South is booming in population because of natural change. The fertility rate is still only at replacement level, if that.
I'm not sure how you could argue that the South is booming in population because of natural change. The fertility rate is still only at replacement level, if that.
In Atlanta for every native I know, I know 10 transplants. And they're literally from everywhere, not just the South as some would have you believe.
Actually you will because guess what? The North had slavery too.
You could start a thread on such a topic? Present your facts and see if the degrees of slavery in North vs South states hold up? Surely bordering-states and borderline areas in states? Ended up in their state's having to make a choice..... despite mixed views in regions.
Heck, even among Southerners then? Families could divide and did on it. Not all Southerners were plantation slave owners.....
If you really, Really, REALLY want a battle? Put the thread in the Political and other Controversies forum ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyH
I find it ridiculous Chicago or any large metro can have large amounts of transplant but nobody questions what region it belongs to Northeast, Midwest, the South the West. But if it's Texas (south central the majority if it) or Florida (southeast) then it's no longer belongs in the south. Demographics do change but geography doesn't. I guess the south is the only one frozen in time to some.
Well if the Southeast gets Chicago now? I'm a changin my vote..... But Chicago is loosing its decendents of the Great Southern migration of African-Americans today? Clear stats on that and large #'s over last 2-decades so .... But I never heard Chicago called Northeastern but clearly.... immigrants moved NYC westward as well into the 20th century most arrived there? But it is clearly still, Chicago is the most unique of all the Midwest cities anyway. It clearly did not choose a Northeast-type built environment either.
As for Texas .... it can still be lumped "The South" by many. But NOT Southeastern to me. But mostly it is being placed as a Southwestern state today for more reasons as you can't divide it in half as the western half alone as Southwest.
But no one can dispute the large migration to Texas major cities in this more modern-era. From the Midwest and Northeast still today.
While most cities in the Midwest are great places to live and raise a family, there are no cities in that region of the country that provide the same level of colonial grandeur and ambiance as Charleston and Savannah.
Case closed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
Charleston's metro is one of the fastest-growing in the nation and is approaching 800K; while not exactly big, that certainly isn't "tiny."
And what cities in the Midwest have a similar ambience to Charleston and Savannah? Those cities don't rank high on tourist and "best cities to visit" lists for nothing.
Yeah, that's really small, especially as a crutch to stand on when comparing massive regions like the South and Midwest.
Similar ambiance? You mean to the small part people refer to when they think of these places, or the rest that's similar to a lot of the US? Don't get me wrong, they were interesting, but they're being massively overrated right now...
Those cities "quite a bit older than the United States" have no surviving architecture from that time period. In most cases they were a log cabin fur trading post for French hermits, not actual cities.
When people think age of a city, they're really searching for surviving buildings from this period.
Sure, and Charleston & Savannah have a nice concentration of surviving buildings, but so do many cities in the Midwest which are being oddly ignored here... There was a thread a while back that ranked cities according to % of building stock from different decades, I'll try and find it. I don't remember if Charleston and Savannah were in the thread though as they're again, not exactly very big.
Sure, and Charleston & Savannah have a nice concentration of surviving buildings, but so do many cities in the Midwest which are being oddly ignored here... There was a thread a while back that ranked cities according to % of building stock from different decades, I'll try and find it. I don't remember if Charleston and Savannah were in the thread though as they're again, not exactly very big.
Lol it’s not about just having “old buildings.”
Point is, there’s not a city in the Midwest with the allure and aesthetic appeal like Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans. There’s much more diverse architecture in the Southeast...
You could start a thread on such a topic? Present your facts and see if the degrees of slavery in North vs South states hold up? Surely bordering-states and borderline areas in states? Ended up in their state's having to make a choice..... despite mixed views in regions.
Heck, even among Southerners then? Families could divide and did on it. Not all Southerners were plantation slave owners.....
If you really, Really, REALLY want a battle? Put the thread in the Political and other Controversies forum ....
And none of that has squat to do with my factual statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarstl
Yeah, that's really small, especially as a crutch to stand on when comparing massive regions like the South and Midwest.
I disagree. Both regions are littered with actual tiny towns and even nearly deserted places. Charleston and Savannah are on the smaller side as metros (more so Savannah), but they aren't "tiny."
Quote:
Similar ambiance? You mean to the small part people refer to when they think of these places, or the rest that's similar to a lot of the US? Don't get me wrong, they were interesting, but they're being massively overrated right now...
Actually that ambiance extends well beyond their historic districts to outlying areas and the coast. Charleston and Savannah are unique cities in a distinctive geographical region (the Lowcountry).
Point is, there’s not a city in the Midwest with the allure and aesthetic appeal like Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans. There’s much more diverse architecture in the Southeast...
"Lol" Ok, "allur and aesthetic appeal" are subjective, stop trying to state your opinion as fact. Not a fan of the architecture in Chicago, St. Louis, Cincy, etc? How are you quantifying your, "There’s much more diverse architecture in the Southeast..." statement?
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.
