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.
In Georgia, Savannah. Savannah always seems to get overlooked and doesn't get as recognized as it's neighbor, Charleston. Charleston is said to be larger, but they are roughly about the same size. I haven't been to Charleston since I was little, but if I were to go back there again I'm not sure if I would be as impressed as I was by Savannah.
Other GA cities that are underrated are Augusta and Macon, basically any city besides Atlanta because they all get overshadowed by it.
I think Columbus and Athens in GA are underrated too.
Alabama. Seriously, much like Missippi, we have a bad rep and many have false images of tumbleweeds and tobacci-chewin', banjo-playin' hillbillies. Mainly Mobile. We have the same history of New Orleans and are older (we are also the original home of Mardi Gras). At one point, we were pretty booming, but hardly anybody even knows of us today, aside from companies looking for a manufacturing facility. While we are on the rise and have a nice, urban downtown that is constantly improving, we really need to change the mind-set of people about our great state. Other cities here, such as Montgomery and Huntsville are also under-rated.
I also agree about Columbus, GA. Don't know about Charlseton really being under-rated, though, at least not in my mind.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,330,482 times
Reputation: 12186
In Kentucky its defiantly Ashland. It is probably the most urban city outside Louisville / Lexington/ Northern KY and is really close to Huntington WV as well. Ashland has a large hospital, a nice sized small, the largest oil refinery in the region, and shares the world's largest inland port w/ Huntington.
For VA, Richmond almost always seems to get beat up on. Some stereotype it as being some rundown ultra southern hick town. As far as it being rundown, yes there are parts that are definitely run down , but there are also many ultra nice wealthy areas of the city with fantastic restored historic homes and buildings. And newsflash: Richmond is a very old city so it's going to have a natural grimy feel to it. Think a smaller Baltimore, Philly, and much smaller New York. The city itself is not southern in any way. People who say that only look at the monuments and read the history books. As I said in another similar thread, if you wave the ole "stars and bars" in the city you're probably going to get shot. The close in burbs not very southern but very soccer mom'ish. The farther out, specifically south and west of the city is more southern or country. The area also boasts some very nice shopping destinations in newer shopping centers. It also suffers from being in the shadow of D.C. I have a feeling that if Washington was not so close to Richmond then Richmond might be an even larger city today.
In Maryland, i think Frostburg, St Marys City, and many eastern shore cities are underrated
the Eastern Shore, and the Delmarva Peninsula as a whole is very forgotten about
St Marys City goes back FAR. The Architecture isnt stunning, but the history is just so intriguing and yet not even the people of Maryland really seem to recognize it. Its the 4th oldest permanent European settlement in North America. a very interesting place
Frostburg is just so nice. People know about Frostburg state, but the town itself is so nice and so are the people. Western Maryland is the best part of the state, but often forgotten about
Frederick and Hagerstown used to be underated until all of the Montgomery county people fled for lower costs to the two cities and wont stop building suburbia around them. they were once really nice, and their downtowns still are, but the rest...
I'm sure a lot of the California posters will agree with me that any city not named Los Angeles or San Francisco are extremely underrated. It's really hard for any city in the state to ever reach the level of popularity and level of notoriety as either city.
This is especially rough for cities like Long Beach, Oakland, and San Jose which would all be urban centers in their own right (although San Jose TECHNICALLY is according to the US Census, but a lot of people throw it in with San Francisco anyways) but are overshadowed by their much more famous nearby cities. If either LA (for Long Beach) or SF (for Oakland and San Jose) didn't exist, these cities would most likely be the urban center of the metro area.
San Diego and Sacramento are more "middle America" (especially Sacramento) than either SF or LA, but are also the centers of extremely diverse, and busy metropolitan areas as well. If either metro were in another state, they would be the urban nexus of that state. Strangely enough, I have a weird attraction to Sacramento and actually like the place (unlike most people I meet that have been there).
In terms of being underrated out of the larger metros in the state, I vote for Sacramento. Yeah, there may not be that many cultural attractions and its mostly surrounded on its north and south sides by farmland, but its really trying to become a decent urban center (source: . Sacramento already has light rail, which serves nearly 50,000 daily, has more decent weather than most of the country (yeah, hot summers but really good winters), nice riverfront that you can go boating or water skiing in (which is very fun), has a lively Uptown and very historic Old Downtown reminiscent of the Old West, very pretty suburbs like El Dorado Hills, and is in close proximity to most of the natural and manmade attractions of Northern California without having to deal with the crowded nature of the Bay Area. In addition, the metropolitan area is politically moderate, so you can actually see and hear both sides of a political debate without having to always plays 'devil's advocate'.
Like the rest of California, the Sacramento area and city is also very diverse, but residents of the city don't seem to put it in your face as much as people in SF or LA would. Sacramento city, California - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006-2008 Sacramento, CA 38.4% White
24.6% Hispanic
18.5% Asian and Pacific Islander
13.7% Black
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.
Philly
