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 wonder if greater public transit ridership results in more people being in a hurry. My guess is that you see a lot of people full out running in NYC not because they're impatient (or even late), but because they have to take the subway to a transfer point and take commuter rail, a ferry, etc. A 5 minute subway delay could mean the difference between getting home at 7pm or 7:35 pm.
Perhaps drivers feel they have more control over their schedule and don't feel compelled to sprint from their office buildings to the parking garage.
I tend to agree. Every city has bad traffic congestion in and around their major business districts, but not all have rail stations every couple of blocks in the core of the city that serve as major access points for scores of pedestrians that consistently fill urban sidewalks for 12 hours of the day.
I agree with what you're saying, but I don't see that worker bee, rush, rush mentality as a quality that makes a city/region better than the other from a functional standpoint. However, they are necessary.
I agree that a faster pace isn't some inherently better quality of a city, but I can kinda see how some might imply that given the connection it has with mass transit.
I wonder if greater public transit ridership results in more people being in a hurry. My guess is that you see a lot of people full out running in NYC not because they're impatient (or even late), but because they have to take the subway to a transfer point and take commuter rail, a ferry, etc. A 5 minute subway delay could mean the difference between getting home at 7pm or 7:35 pm.
Perhaps drivers feel they have more control over their schedule and don't feel compelled to sprint from their office buildings to the parking garage.
I think that's part of it. It's people walking with a purpose as opposed to being tourists or walking for recreational activities. I've also found that people from cold weather places tend to walk faster in general.
I agree with what you're saying, but I don't see that worker bee, rush, rush mentality as a quality that makes a city/region better than the other from a functional standpoint. However, they are necessary.
Nobody says it’s better. It’s just an opinion. Same with the southern thing. Everyone is all insulted when you say their city is southern. It’s not an insult
Nobody says it’s better. It’s just an opinion. Same with the southern thing. Everyone is all insulted when you say their city is southern. It’s not an insult
I think people get offended because of the intent of someone calling their city southern. People on city data tend to call cities southern as an insult; like that City is beneath their city. What Southerners in C-D should stop doing is acting like victims. What northerners should stop doing is living in the past, and stop it with the double standards. People will say things like "Miami isn't southern because there is a HUGE Latin element," or "that City isn't southern because northerners are moving there." Why aren't northern cities with huge Latin populations less northern? Why didn't the Great Migration make northern cities less northern? The South is the most sought after region in the country right now, which the majority of the fastest growing cities in the country. Be proud to be a southerner... hell, I've been saying Baltimore is the South for some years now, and people want to argue with me about that.
People will say things like "Miami isn't southern because there is a HUGE Latin element," or "that City isn't southern because northerners are moving there." Why aren't northern cities with huge Latin populations less northern? Why didn't the Great Migration make northern cities less northern?
Because Northern cities were destinations for immigrants and Black folks from the very beginning as they themselves were centers of industry with a high demand for labor. The South was more agrarian and heavily relied on slavery which was concentrated in the countryside and thus the region had very little need for big cities and the few that did exist were looked upon rather suspiciously by Southern aristocrats and were even described as being Northern in character. Outside of New Orleans and the large peripheral cities in slave states (e.g., Baltimore, St. Louis, Louisville), immigration to Southern cities was pretty short-lived in the late 18th/early 19th century compared to Northern cities and after the Civil War, there weren't really many economic opportunities in the region for immigrants to take advantage of. By and large, the South only started getting large waves of domestic transplants and immigrants (i.e., outsiders) after Jim Crow was struck down by the passage of landmark civil rights legislation and immigration reform took place in the 1960's. Large-scale regional, racial, and ethnic diversity has been a feature of Northern cities for much, much longer compared to the South which mostly operated as a closed society based on a rigid binary racial hierarchy for most of its history.
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.
