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.
Good list, but mine would be:
1. Atlanta/Charlotte
2. Raleigh
3. Richmond
4. Birmingham
Fair enough, I can see why some people would put Atlanta and Charlotte at the top of their list- lots of good job opportunities, fairly progressive policies, etc. I have many friends in both places that have started families and have had solid, well-paying jobs/careers. And in the case of Atlanta, for me it could move further up on the list, but it would depend on the job and location within the metro. Overall the metro is much bigger than I prefer, so if I had to deal with tons of traffic- as Atlanta has always been known for- I'd hate it b/c spending a ton of time commuting cuts strongly into quality of life, IMHO. Regarding Charlotte, well, for some reason it has just never done anything for me, and I've given it plenty of chances. Even with a lot of my close friends being there and swearing by it, I was never drawn to it enough to make the move. But again, I know a lot of people who swear by it, and love the lifestyle that it has afforded them.
Fair enough, I can see why some people would put Atlanta and Charlotte at the top of their list- lots of good job opportunities, fairly progressive policies, etc. I have many friends in both places that have started families and have had solid, well-paying jobs/careers. And in the case of Atlanta, for me it could move further up on the list, but it would depend on the job and location within the metro. Overall the metro is much bigger than I prefer, so if I had to deal with tons of traffic- as Atlanta has always been known for- I'd hate it b/c spending a ton of time commuting cuts strongly into quality of life, IMHO. Regarding Charlotte, well, for some reason it has just never done anything for me, and I've given it plenty of chances. Even with a lot of my close friends being there and swearing by it, I was never drawn to it enough to make the move. But again, I know a lot of people who swear by it, and love the lifestyle that it has afforded them.
I think all are nice and livable. I could live in any one of them. I love the southeast area! But Atlanta and Charlotte stand out above the other, IMO, because their central cores are more vibrant and they seem to have a momentum that the other cities do not yet have. I believe strongly in good downtown/core. All of them have great suburbs but again, ATL and CLT are steaming ahead of the others on that list.
Richmond feels like it should be farther south. Raleigh feels like it should be farther north. they aren't "about the same" at all as far as feels.
First time I went it to Richmond, it felt unmistakably and unapologetically old, historic southern. Only a few, specific areas of Raleigh still retain that, and for those areas that do, there's still no comparison to Richmond.
lol Raleigh looks like one Giant Southern Suburb. Probably last of the bunch in terms of physical development...
LOL, are you sure you have seen Richmond? I mean this is the reflection of a city with pre-war industry, which is not something that was particularly common in the south, even in New Orleans. The hallmark of today's new south urban center is one with a lot of postwar architecture surrounded by sprawling suburbs because that was the era in which they've matured. Row homes, streetcar/dense inner ring neighborhoods, and vestiges of industry are not as prevalent in the south, but are in cities like Norfolk, Baltimore, Philly, etc. So while it's historic, I'm not sure what would makes it particularly "southern" or more southern than other locales. History is what makes Richmond southern, but not its politics, accents, or what you see on the ground or even in the suburbs. If we're going by look and feel you'd really have to help me out. Virtually all southern cities share certain culinary traditions, a characteristically southern countryside, and historic demographics. But I feel that Richmonders view their city as one of the links between the north and the south, and are proud of how that has contributed and forced it to reckon with its history.
Good post. Yes, that was me that repped you. I don't think that many people walked the streets of Richmond but the other cities aren't even coming close (Atlantan who used to live in RVA). Nice website highlighting The Fan.
To me, there are several different dimensions to the question such as livability, culture, and economics, among others. For example, if I were wealthy, loved cultural attractions and the hum of a big city, and could afford to live close to town, then Atlanta is the obvious choice. If I were some middle-class guy who had to schlep it downtown from the exurbs every day, there's absolutely no way I would live there. Life in Atlanta is a nightmarish existence for those who commute.
Meanwhile, if I liked great restaurants but wanted a town where I could get around easily, Birmingham is a good choice. But if I loved professional sports, it certainly wouldn't be my choice.
In other words, all five are pretty great towns with lots of qualities. So your choice really depends on what qualities are most important to you.
How familiar are you with downtown Raleigh? And be honest.
And what do you mean by "physical development"?
People can rag on Raleigh all they want, but pound for pound, it offers the highest quality of life of all these cities going by standard metrics.
Raleigh is cool, I went to college there and lived in Cary when it was ALOT smaller than it is now. Both Raleigh and Richmond have a lot going for them. It’s a virtual tie between them in my opinion it just depends upon your situation, opportunities and personal preference. And I like Raleigh’s downtown it was just a little sleepy when I was there.
It's really interesting how perceptions of Richmond vary. For some, the urban fabric and layout stick out a bit more, giving Richmond more similarities with other Virginia cities in particular and cities to the north of it, and for those folks, Richmond comes across as less Southern. While natives and locals are used to all the monuments, statues, and historic sites, they can really stick out to visitors and and to many, it says that the city is proud of its history and Southern roots in a way that's not true of New South cities in particular, so for others, this makes Richmond more Southern. And it should be noted that with all of the recent controversy about Confederate statues and monuments, Richmond has not removed any unlike other historic Southern cities like Baltimore, New Orleans, and Louisville. I'd imagine that many see this as Richmond taking pride in those monuments and statues and that they probably play a bigger role in the city's identity than some may realize.
Great observations, as usual..
About those monuments... Richmond turned them over to private trusts back in the 90’s. Unlike the monuments in places like New Orleans and Baltimore, the monuments are not public property and no public money goes to their maintenance. Nearly 30 years ago the city determined that it was inappropriate to spend any more tax money on them.
Richmond, most of the southern culture feels relegated to aesthetics and historical reminders.
This and the following aquest comment I quoted save words but encapsulate Richmond properly. Rich certain doesn't feel more southern than any of these cities and the only thing people can come back to is said historical reminders/aesthetics...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquest1
I feel that Richmonders view their city as one of the links between the north and the south, and are proud of how that has contributed and forced it to reckon with its history.
Exactly this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
I'd imagine that many see this as Richmond taking pride in those monuments and statues and that they probably play a bigger role in the city's identity than some may realize.
This is a fair point to make, to which I'd reply:
Richmond is proud of its history. Not all of it, and that's reflected decade-over-decade with the diminished importance of the Civil War era. But it is our history. There are plenty of supporters for tearing down the monuments, changing school names (all these things are still pretty much monthly topics), and there is also plenty of support for keeping the monuments and names because that is a part of our story, keeping these things in place but contextualizing them in a manner different from the eras that erected and glorified them. They are no longer glorified, and haven't been since long before the Charlottesville incident, but it is our story...
I'd also add that whereas some visitors may be struck with the "reminders"---though in my experience, visitors to the city that I've brought or been around have very, very rarely brought up that period, and that's within just the last few years, but I suppose there are people with heightened sensitivity to the markers---, in Richmond, people in and/or from the city, there is a lot of history in Rich and the Civil War history is definitely not the only history on display. To us, as a generality, that era is a snapshot in a long and storied history. I'm not downplaying the significance of that era, but I do think it's worth considering that the remnants of that era are maybe more important today to outsiders than to locals. I'm not sure most Richmonders would call that 5-year run the most significant period in the city's history; mayne the most popular? Sure, going off the apparent perception of many who still view the city as Capital of the Confederacy 153 years after that regime ended, but most significant, I don't think we view it as such, and it really is just one era and one part of an old, old city's story...
Tearing down the monuments wouldn't change who we were then, and another angle is this is kind of proof that the city is unique and not into peer pressure. Everybody else tearing theirs down doesn't mean they weren't representative of those ideologies in the era they erected them. And keeping those monuments around doesn't make Richmond particularly proud of what they stood for. It makes us Richmond, and the monuments only negate what the city is and stands for to those who haven't had a chance to really learn the city...
But this is a fair point you make, though I don't think it means that period has essential importance to the identity of Richmond today!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy123
I think all are nice and livable. I could live in any one of them. I love the southeast area! But Atlanta and Charlotte stand out above the other, IMO, because their central cores are more vibrant and they seem to have a momentum that the other cities do not yet have. I believe strongly in good downtown/core. All of them have great suburbs but again, ATL and CLT are steaming ahead of the others on that list.
I would only say Atlanta competes with Richmond in vibrancy because of how many districts and how large the districts of vibrancy are in Atlanta. Scaled to all things equal, Atlanta isnt more vibrant than Richmond, but neither of these other cities are even close...
Atlanta and Charlotte are much larger than Rich and that is evident and unquestionable. More vibrant than Richmond is definitely questionable...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
How familiar are you with downtown Raleigh? And be honest.
And what do you mean by "physical development"?
People can rag on Raleigh all they want, but pound for pound, it offers the highest quality of life of all these cities going by standard metrics.
Are you suggesting Raleigh doesn't look like a southern suburb? Because he didn't say anything about quality of life, so you're making a counter to an assertion that wasn't made, and his response was to those who mentioned Raleigh "belongs further north", though strangely (and I'm being sarcastic here), those people have not said what it is about Raleigh that gives it a "northern" style. It certainly isn't in anything physical, or in its connectivity to northern locales (there are a lot of northern transplants in Raleigh but besides DC, there isn't any actual connectivity to northern cities), or in its cultural make up...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80s_kid
Good post. Yes, that was me that repped you. I don't think that many people walked the streets of Richmond but the other cities aren't even coming close (Atlantan who used to live in RVA). Nice website highlighting The Fan.
It's very clear that there's a desire to define Richmond by how people "want" it to be, than how it actually is. That was just The Fan; we all know it clearly isn't the only Richmond neighborhood with Northeast-like structural density (mid-rises, rowhomes, etc), and we all know that other characteristics about Richmond point to it being the least southern of this group of cities. Consider me amused...
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.
