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.
It's not just about being the most dominant metro. If the entire American South were included (let's exclude DC for conversation purposes), Miami and DFW enter the discussion with Houston and Atlanta. But None of those 3 have the Southern central regional ties that Atlanta possesses. Doesn't mean they aren't in the south of course, but they don't have the historic, regional, and cultural ties that Atlanta possesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Aristotle
Atlanta...period. It is smack dab in the middle of the (cultural) south and meets every aspect of being the centerpiece.
/end thread
Plus Atlanta is the largest metro in the South to truly embrace its Southern identity and market itself as such. There's no argument about whether Atlanta belongs to some other region, which is hard to do anyway with such a centralized position within the region.
Plus Atlanta is the largest metro in the South to truly embrace its Southern identity and market itself as such.
Yup. Point blank, Houston is the crossroads between Dixie, Texas and Latin America. DFW is the crossroads between Dixie, Texas and the great planes. Atlanta is uniquely south periodt.
I think Atlanta is by far, the large metro "capital of the south."
If you put Atlanta into a tier 1 metro capital city of the south category and move down into tier 2 and tier 3, I think these are the 2 cities that might land there--
tier 1: Atlanta
tier 2: Birmingham
tier 3: Chattanooga
I still start off by saying I don't agree with the idea of including Houston as part of the South without including DFW. While both DFW and Houston have some level of influence, both of them are still their own thing compared to "Dixie." IMO, either both should be considered or neither should be considered.
I also don't think the comparison with Miami is good. For one, it's not the most dominant metro by most measures. But also, Miami's disproportionately stronger hispanic/latino influence has caused its culture to evolve in a way that's much less southern than what you'll encounter in Dallas and Houston.
That said, I acknowledge an argument can be made that Texas should not be included as part of "The South." It's an opinion and some would argue otherwise.
I agree with all this. I was saying how despite Houston and DFW certainly being in the south, they’re behind as compared to Atlanta in southern ties. Culturally, geographically, I see plenty of Dixie in all of DFW including Fort Worth. Those who say Fort Worth “is more Texan”... well there’s plenty of Dixie in “Texan”. Texas isn’t known for being evangelical and pro gun for no reason. Fort Worth in terms of big cities is the epidemy of that.
But in a historic fashion, the South was always centered around the Atlanta region. And all the southern cultures that spring up that become a bit different than the original South despite being similar in many ways (Cajun culture, Texan culture, etc), Atlanta is the central city where the region holds its historic ties.
Plus Atlanta is the largest metro in the South to truly embrace its Southern identity and market itself as such. There's no argument about whether Atlanta belongs to some other region, which is hard to do anyway with such a centralized position within the region.
I said this in a post about 12 years ago on here in the initial very long capital of the south thread and nothing has changed.
Quote:
First off, there is no such thing as capital of the South. Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Miami all have an argument for being the capital of the South. No other city does not. These are by far right now the dominate cities in culture, economics, strength, growth, diversity, amenities, etc. Richmond, New Orleans, Charleston had an argument for the title 100 years ago. They are not on the radar now for the argument. Charlotte, Tampa, Austin, and San Antonio are nice growing cities but are a tier under the top 4 cities.
With that said, the OP is confusing "capital" with "center." Houston and Dallas sphere reaches only to maybe the state of Mississippi and north through parts of Arkansas. That's it. Miami's sphere doesn't even go out of Florida. Atlanta's sphere of influence is much more broader than the other 3 cities. It is the center of historical Southern states which are Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Eastern Louisiana, Northern Florida, and North Carolina. Atlanta has a much greater argument to being the center of the south than Houston, Dallas, or Miami.
THAT'S what houstoner was talking about. Now I will say that the state of Louisiana outside of New Orleans is heavily influenced by Houston and Dallas especially Lake Charles to Lafayette (Houston) and Shreveport to Monroe (Dallas). That's why I said maybe Mississippi. But New Orleans, while 150 miles closer to Houston than Atlanta, may have more cultural connections to Atlanta than Houston does but not by much. To be fair though, Atlanta's sphere does not reach Texas and it's basically nonexistant by the time it reaches Texas. This is why some people have a hard time calling Texas a strictly southern State. While it does have characteristics and has very much in common with the rest of the South. Texans have their own thing essentially different from the rest of the South.
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.
