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.
Why You'all fighting over Austin ..... even Texan's agree it it basically Houston that is most Southern at best and not Austin or even Dallas. Perhaps they might say Ft Worth is more? Still RODEOS are NOT a Traditional Deep South thing at State Fairs or other events.
Clearly, Atlanta was the smaller city during the Civil War when Richman VA was the Capital of the Confederacy. Still Atlanta and its less then 10,000 people waaaay back then, was a key city and Rail center of the Deep South. Now look at who has the Population.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It almost does not matter if a city can boast more Transplants or people from the 4-corners of the Globe.... Being most Southern even.... has all the major cities filled now with Northerners and Westerners more and more. Whether Atlanta, Charlotte or Texas cities.... Atlanta still is a HUB And Transportation Center of the South. So why debate..... Texas has Southern Confederacy roots and traditions including a key part of Country music and still is. Just traditionally since a hybrid. No one says Tex-mex culture in the Deep South outside of Texas no? Then there is the Western part that is what might be called a Southwestern culture
Actually the old South in reference were cities like New Orleans, Savanah and Charleston. Which are older colonial cities that never were major industrial centers.
How ever cities like Atlanta and Birmingham were the opposite the industrial revolution is what created them.
Basically cities like Atlanta and Birmingham was The south Answer to the growing cities in North like Cleveland and Pittsburgh, And The term New South was term coin to represent the changes in the South due to the south lacking of cities.
Neighborhood like Inman park, cabbagetown, Sweet Aurburn, grant park, castleberry hill etc represent industrial history well a lot of old Victorian mansion, cottages, shot gun homes, few American craft while a lot historic mills turn into lofts etc. Atlanta industrial history is reason the city now have large projects like Beltline and the Gluth redevelopment.
The irony is the New South is actually historic now. but the term is now also used represent the cities that Rosen post Sunbelt boom after the 1960s.
I guess the south being agrarian never really had cities to quite the same extent, but this does make sense. Although Savannah doesn't really seem very antebellum as a lot of the buildings were post civil war.
It's just surprising how little the historical districts are, and how run down the older parts are once once you walk a couple blocks past places like Cabbagetown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CleverOne
?
Atlanta is not known for being religious but by only you. One of the largest gay populations, and city known for its strip clubs ,cant possibly be thought of as being religious any more than New Orleans being thought of as religious with its grand historic architecture.
Cathedrals is what you measure architectural gems by?LOL
Even still you are wrong. Denver doesnt have anything better than Atlanta in that regard. https://www.google.com/search?q=beau...7_2uxoyu2f8VaM
I dont recall any place as beautiful as the Fox Theater in Atlanta in Denver.Neighborhoods like Inman and Candler Parks,Druid Hills,(neighborhoods made by the Olmsteads of Central Park fame) Grant Park etc or the Georgian Terrace etc.
Also this thing called war where Atlanta was burned happened.
Not sure about the city, but the metro sure is churchy! Tons of little protestant churches all over. If you filter out the pics that weren't Atlanta and change Denver from cathedral to church and it still wins.
But churches are just one measuring stick of how much people could invest in their cities beauty, and churches are historic because nobody builds cathedrals anymore.
The oldest structure in LA is from like 1880 well past when Atlanta burned but downtown LA has so much more historic architecture than ATL.
I'm not saying Atlanta or the south should or should not have done anything, all I'm saying is that the vast majority of structures in the south is new. The old south that remains is only a couple neighborhoods.
So, saying a city encompasses the "new south" is fruitless, they are all new and all of them can be put in that bucket.
I guess the south being agrarian never really had cities to quite the same extent, but this does make sense. Although Savannah doesn't really seem very antebellum as a lot of the buildings were post civil war.
It's just surprising how little the historical districts are, and how run down the older parts are once once you walk a couple blocks past places like Cabbagetown.
Not sure about the city, but the metro sure is churchy! Tons of little protestant churches all over. If you filter out the pics that weren't Atlanta and change Denver from cathedral to church and it still wins.
But churches are just one measuring stick of how much people could invest in their cities beauty, and churches are historic because nobody builds cathedrals anymore.
The oldest structure in LA is from like 1880 well past when Atlanta burned but downtown LA has so much more historic architecture than ATL.
I'm not saying Atlanta or the south should or should not have done anything, all I'm saying is that the vast majority of structures in the south is new. The old south that remains is only a couple neighborhoods.
So, saying a city encompasses the "new south" is fruitless, they are all new and all of them can be put in that bucket.
It's because the boneheads who ran the place in the past had no issue bulldozing old buildings to build massive developments centered around suburban commuters. It's so tragic to see how dense Atlanta used to be and walk around a Downtown where the most active parts are hollowed out car corridors with little to no street retail. The best parts of Downtown were the abandoned parts like South Downtown, the Auburn and Edgewood corridors, and Castleberry Hill which are all in the middle of massive revitalization efforts . Peachtree Center has good aspects like the underground mall but everything else in that development is utter garbage that destroyed the urban feeling of the city and hopefully gets corrected as Downtown reemerges within the next decade.
So, saying a city encompasses the "new south" is fruitless, they are all new and all of them can be put in that bucket.
This is simply untrue. Although the South had comparatively less cities in the antebellum era, that doesn't mean it was totally devoid of them. Richmond, Charleston, Savannah, Louisville, Mobile, and New Orleans are the most notable (and to be fair, DC and Baltimore were considered Southern for most of their histories as well), with some honorable mention going to the likes of San Antonio, Birmingham, Memphis, Chattanooga, Asheville, South Beach, etc. to varying extents. So while most of the cities in the South began booming and developing extensively in the WWII era, it's not factually correct to say that all Southern cities are new.
About Atlanta's southern architecture, we also shouldn't forget that a lot of the stuff that was from the Antebullum era was destroyed in the fire set off by General Sherman during the Civil War.
Some of the smaller places (now suburbs) surrounding Atlanta still have their antebullum architecture intact though, because they were designated as hospital towns for the soldiers and thus spared from destruction.
It's because the boneheads who ran the place in the past had no issue bulldozing old buildings to build massive developments centered around suburban commuters.
This wasn't a local problem; it was a national problem. National policy set the stage for this to happen.
One thing that often gets overlooked in these discussions is just how much more of their historic urban fabrics Northeastern and Midwestern cities destroyed. This is to be expected as they had more to work with as well, but it's just as big of or an even bigger tragedy IMO. The largest historic district which was on the National Register of Historic Places to be razed to date wasn't in the South but the Midwest. Hartford and New Haven were among the worst offenders in the country when it came to their urban renewal efforts. Philadelphia even considered razing Independence Hall at one point, and while that thankfully never happened, a slew of historic buildings were destroyed to make way for Independence Mall.
About Atlanta's southern architecture, we also shouldn't forget that a lot of the stuff that was from the Antebullum era was destroyed in the fire set off by General Sherman during the Civil War.
Some of the smaller places (now suburbs) surrounding Atlanta still have their antebullum architecture intact though, because they were designated as hospital towns for the soldiers and thus spared from destruction.
Very true, and then there were other cities that experienced big fires in the early 20th century like Augusta and Jacksonville.
I guess the south being agrarian never really had cities to quite the same extent, but this does make sense. Although Savannah doesn't really seem very antebellum as a lot of the buildings were post civil war.
It's just surprising how little the historical districts are, and how run down the older parts are once once you walk a couple blocks past places like Cabbagetown.
That cause cities kept expanding and rebuilding, Savanah is colonial city, in fact the Savannah Historic District is one largest in country. Savannah Historic District Savannah and Squares of Savannah. And even post civil war stuff is a lot Victorian. Savannah age is very easy to tell.
Quote:
Not sure about the city, but the metro sure is churchy! Tons of little protestant churches all over. If you filter out the pics that weren't Atlanta and change Denver from cathedral to church and it still wins.
But churches are just one measuring stick of how much people could invest in their cities beauty, and churches are historic because nobody builds cathedrals anymore.
The oldest structure in LA is from like 1880 well past when Atlanta burned but downtown LA has so much more historic architecture than ATL.
Atlanta overtly has more pre 1920 historic building then LA. but LA has more early modern building than Atlanta 1920-1950.
Atlanta core in general is a few decades older, Which is why LA has much streets. Its not Atlanta doesn't have historic building and history it's rather you know nothing of it. Or rather not understanding what your seeing. LA has more historic build is because large stock 1920-1950 when it surpass Atlanta. Not that it has more building before Most of Atlanta intown neighborhoods are historic districts or have a lot of historic architecture. largely from 1870 to 1940s so really confused by this comment. Atlanta core neighborhoods are dominantly, Victorian 1870–1901, and American Craftsman 1890s–1930s.
I mention Inman park, cabbagetown, Sweet Aurburn, grant park, castleberry hill, but I could had kept going with Fairlie–Poplar, Atkins Park, Virginia–Highland, Candler Park, West End, historic Midetown historic district, etc have homes or have buildings a part of the national register of historic places.
I think you over look historic building and places assume they younger than what they are. Victorian architecture come from the architectural trends in the English speaking world during Queen Victoria rule 1837–1901. So if you look a neighborhood like Inman park you could easily tell the neighborhood was first develop in the 1880s.. Then Also have a lot American craft.
I don't understand your obsession with churches, or that you think Atlanta suppose to have these grand cathedrals, But Atlanta historic buildings would largely be commercial, government, industrial and homes. a few examples
I'm not saying Atlanta or the south should or should not have done anything, all I'm saying is that the vast majority of structures in the south is new. The old south that remains is only a couple neighborhoods.
So, saying a city encompasses the "new south" is fruitless, they are all new and all of them can be put in that bucket.
No... I knew what you was trying to say and I'm saying it'ss inaccurate. Beside the Colonial cities, generalizing the south as all "new" create a narrative like Orlando and Atlanta are same age. When Atlanta is closer to Cleveland age then Orlando. Some larger Sunbelt cities like LA, Houston, Atlanta and Dallas were already million people before the Sunbelt boom.
When term new South was created as Atlanta and Birmingham were younger cities was time when Cleveland, chicago, Detroit etc were also young cities. They were larger but not much older.
The Sunbelt boom is the rapid growth after 1960s. Some cities such as Charlotte, Phoenix, etc became major cities after the boom. While Atlanta, Houston and Dallas grew over 5 million after the boom. They were already major cities with metros over a million before.
Last edited by chiatldal; 05-02-2021 at 12:53 PM..
New South = people who hang flags from their houses advertising their identity, often where they went to college. Who also follow college football more than the NFL and will tell you they went to Wake/UNC/Georgia/Alabama/Clemson/Florida/Duke/GA Tech within two minutes of meeting them. Also not very up on fashion and still walk around tucking golf shirts into khakis like 1990s Best Buy salesmen.
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.
