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.
If my history is correct, then Texas seceeded from the union during the Civil War. it is also obvious that Texas was part of the Western expansion because it was the Western most part of the country at the time. Also, Alabama and Mississippi were apart of the Western expansion. just wanted to go over some history.
Exactly right! The West as a cultural region today, is much different than what was meant by the term during the days of western migration. As you correctly point out, "the west" in the latter sense evolved as the country expanded, and at one time states regarded as in the east today, were very much "the west" at some point in time. The post-bellum "frontier" West of an era is something most of Texas was very much a part of. The modern day West (i.e. Rocky Mountains, interior Southwest, and Pacific Coast) does not include Texas (with perhaps the trans-pecos/El Paso areas).
Marta does not cover the whole city so stop that foolishness. Dallas is light rail which is okay I guess for a southern city. The Marta subway only have 2 lines. When Atlanta expands their subway system then maybe you can say something.
So what? Rome only has two lines too. Is Rome's metro system foolish? Is Rome a foolish city?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdw1084
When you move to another place, you have to adjust to the lifestyle there. If I moved to NYC I wouldn't be complaining about finding a house with a backyard, instead i'd adjust and live in an apartment. Simple as that.
What an interesting concept. Adaptation. For those city-daters who don't know this, humankind's ability to adapt to our environment is one of the things that have made us so biologically successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
eh...pretty sure dallas and atlanta miami and houston are trying to urbanize more at this point as they realize they probably went too far in the other direction.
It's more a matter of necessity now. The city limits can only spread so far from the nucleus before the whole thing becomes too unwieldy. People are moving back into the city core in almost all the "sunbelt" cities for the same reasons so many city-daters complain about them: sprawl, traffic, commute times, overly reliant on the auto, etc. Unless you work in the 'burbs, it's difficult to justify living in the 'burbs except for the cost of living factor and the supposed "excellent" schools. And, as the 'burbs push farther and farther out, many "sunbelt" residents like myself consider the work/life balance and time with friends and family to be more important than a cheap house with a big yard. And, I'd probably kill myself if I had to spend two hours a day commuting. I'm hardly the only person who feels this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adavi215
If my history is correct, then Texas seceeded from the union during the Civil War. it is also obvious that Texas was part of the Western expansion because it was the Western most part of the country at the time. Also, Alabama and Mississippi were apart of the Western expansion. just wanted to go over some history.
Alabama and Mississippi were always a part of the traditional South. They were just the farthest Western reaches of the original Georgia colony.
More Southwest. Its own thing. Except for some of East Texas, it is much different from LA, MS, AL, GA, AR, KY, TN, SC.
Texas is the south. You tell that two the 3 milliom african americans that live in the state east of I 35 that they are part of the southwest lol. Texas was just as racist as any other southern state. Dallas and Houston are filled with history from the civil rights movements. Even a famous U.S. president died in Dallas. The Cotton Bowl isnt called the Cottton Bowl for nothing. You remember Syracuse vs. Texas in the cotton bowl and how much racism Ernie Davis and his black teammates experience in Dallas.
I find the south and west to be very similar in some ways....both hold or held the promise of a fresh start for many people, whatever that fresh start might mean to them....California was at one time essentially what the south is now before housing skyrocketed IMO. I'm now in Chicago, and ultimately ended up here because I prefer an urban walkable environment....there are many people who settle in the south and feel the same way (trapped half their lives in the car), but you don't hear that on the Forbes list since alas it's affordable and there are jobs. I was in Raleigh/Durham, which was one of the more progressive areas in the south, but there just wasn't enough urbanity for me...usually had to trek up to DC for a real city. ATL is the promised land of urban life in the southeast...still not nearly urban enough.
I do like the south, however. The people I encountered while living in Raleigh were some of the best you could hope for....native food is very good and there are transplants that are adding many amenities that you'll find in the truly "big" cities...ala NYC, Chicago, DC, San Francisco. If you're happily married, and past the bars/clubs, I think the region has some real appeal. Find an urban southern region, and the political thing is not a real issue..I don't care much for SoCal (save for the weather), but could easily imagine enjoying life in the Bay Area, Seattle or Portland. West has the best scenery in close proximity, but the south has some degree of seasons, which I like. Overall, the south wins....but the west has better cities by a long shot.
The reason why the Southern cities do not have extensive rail systems right now is because of politics. Especially Atlanta (which fights the state of Georgia everyday on this issue) and Houston ( which has fought the combination of Culberson and Delay for nearly 20 years). Culberson is in the pockets of the oil people and thus the reason why Houston did not get rail until now. Dallas right now is expanding their system over the other major cities right now because North Texas REALLY wants rail.
I have to strongly agree with you, and in this I will concede this point to the West. The South is having some hige battles with the progressive generation versus what I like to call the "Old South." The Odl South, not necessarily bad, is very skeptical of giving money towards projects it doesn't see as truly necessary. Such as more urbanity, public transportation, etc. Atlanta is a great example and in my native city of Charlotte we have some too. But, using Charlotte as an example, when we lost the hornets, 3 years later we got another team. Sometimes in the South we run through some hiccups but bounce back. Our Western brothers can understand this by looking at San Francisco and San Diego during the summer.
Unless your talking about coastal/urban Florida, then Id pick the west.
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.
since alas it's affordable and there are jobs. I was in Raleigh/Durham, which was one of the more progressive areas in the south, but there just wasn't enough urbanity for me...usually had to trek up to DC for a real city. ATL is the promised land of urban life in the southeast...still not nearly urban enough.
