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.
Those of you saying Atlanta is similar to the rest of Georgia must have never traveled around the state. Trust me, I spent 2 years down in Albany, GA for school and trust me, Metro Atlanta is NOTHING like the rest of the state. A large percentage of Georgia is flat once you get to around Macon, the scenery is drastically different, the accents change up, people drive God awfully slow, the people are extremely different in terms of dress and attitudes, even from the cities such as Columbus/Augusta etc, you notice alot more pine trees and as you get further south, palm trees. Even going north toward the mountains, the topography is fairly different, not to mention the people. Hell, a majority of Georgia doesn't even offer the same retail offerings or restaurants as Atlanta, including the other metro areas except maybe Savannah. Metro Atlanta is about a good 20-30 years ahead of the rest of Georgia and has zero in common with the rest of the state. Savannah is possibly the only city in Georgia that has SOME of the things that you'd see in Atlanta and even thats a huge stretch. Even then, Savannah's topography and plant life is completely different from Atlanta too.
What makes Savannah kind of unique too aside of Atlanta is being a metro area close to the coast, since all other metro areas in GA are inland (miles 1-80 in I-95 are godd*n boring with nothing spectacular in sight, looks like most Georgians are not very fond of the beach lol). Driving in GA is also one of the worse. Last time I traveled on I-95 someone passed me by the shoulder lane, something I never saw (but very common in Puerto Rico). Last Friday returning from Atlanta a truck pushed me one lane, I think it was somewhere between Atlanta and Macon. Then again the worst driving I have seen in the U.S. is here in Tampa.
What makes Savannah kind of unique too aside of Atlanta is being a metro area close to the coast, since all other metro areas in GA are inland (miles 1-80 in I-95 are godd*n boring with nothing spectacular in sight, looks like most Georgians are not very fond of the beach lol). Driving in GA is also one of the worse. Last time I traveled on I-95 someone passed me by the shoulder lane, something I never saw (but very common in Puerto Rico). Last Friday returning from Atlanta a truck pushed me one lane, I think it was somewhere between Atlanta and Macon. Then again the worst driving I have seen in the U.S. is here in Tampa.
Yeah, Savannah's pretty unique too and to me is different from the rest of the state. But yes, you are right about driving in this state and I've never been to Tampa, but the only place I've seen pple drive worse than here, has to be in South Florida by a landslide.
I voted NY, which is the most extreme example I think, but Chicago is right there with it and I think Detroit (Upper Michigan vs. Detroit is almost as extreme as NYC vs Upstate) is right there. Memphis and Miami are good calls as well, but NYC/Chicago/Detroit are probably the most extreme.
How can any large city possibly be similar in any way to the non-urban parts of the state?
Juneau would certainly be the state capital that is most dissimilar to the rest of the state. Next, maybe Tallahassee. And Carson City, which is in a very un-Nevada-like corner of the state. And the landscape around Cheyenne is a lot more like Nebraska than Wyoming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Oh and there is nothing unique about St. Louis. St. Louis and Kansas City are basically copies of each other. The only difference is that St. Louis has a slightly bigger downtown. Kansas City is a lot bigger though.
Nothing could be further from the truth. St. Louis and Kansas City are not at all similar in any way. In 1900, St. Louis was ten times as big as Kansas City. Virtually all of Kansas City has been laid out and developed in the 20th century, while St. Louis has actually gotten smaller, and is a rusting 19th century German-culture city like Cincinnati or Milwaukee.
All Texas cities have an amount of shared similarity, that much is true.
But SA and Austin do indeed feel completely different from Dallas, Ft Worth, Houston, etc.
The differences Austin exhibits may be more appealing at first, but San Antonio's differences are much more interesting in a deeper sense. It's truly a cross-cultural (Texas an Mexico) and historical city unique within Texas. It's really like the main "border metro" city Texas -- it's the hub for the actual border cities like McAllen, Laredo, Eagle Pass, Del Rio. All of which seem really more like Mexico than Texas, especially since you'll need to go through border patrol checkpoints to get to any of them. SA is like the last stop before the "controlled" border area.
It's a big state and there can be some major differences between the cities (there's a lot of space in between Houston and El Paso). Austin is nowhere near as different from the rest of the state as it's reputation will lead you to believe. I sometimes wonder if it is just perpetuated by all of the recently relocated Californians who tell themselves and others that in order to feel better about being in Texas. I can't say that there is anything that makes Austin or San Antonio an exceptional case in the context of the state as a whole, but, again, each of the major cities have very different personalities. Heck, just look at how different Fort Worth and Dallas are from each other and half the country makes the mistake of lumping them in as one cohesive community. Big states allow for big differences to emerge, though they may not be as stark in Texas as you can find in other places mentioned by the OP.
I think a case could be made for Philadelphia in this regard. The vast majority of PA is really Appalachian in nature whereas Philly would be a fairly significant difference from that. To me in some ways more than NYC would be from the remainder of the state
I think a case could be made for Philadelphia in this regard. The vast majority of PA is really Appalachian in nature whereas Philly would be a fairly significant difference from that. To me in some ways more than NYC would be from the remainder of the state
I'm surprised Philly only got 6 votes on this thread.
Oh and there is nothing unique about St. Louis. St. Louis and Kansas City are basically copies of each other. The only difference is that St. Louis has a slightly bigger downtown. Kansas City is a lot bigger though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by branh0913
Well no one counts the East Area, so KCMO is bigger than St. Louis. But overall, St. Louis would not be considered the most unique city in the state of Missouri. There are few if any differences between Kansas City and St. Louis. Not to say both cities are exactly the same, as St. Louis is a tad bit more urban, and I only say a tab bit. Overall neither city unique enough to basically be different than the rest of the state.
You again? Lol, didn't you learn your lesson before? You were already shown factual evidence from the US Census Bureau that showed you had absolutely no clue what you were talking about backed up by countless posters. It was also illustrated that you didn't really know anything about St. Louis which you are again immediately showing (along with KC and now the state as a whole...). Any reason why you feel so passionate about trolling this subject again? Or are you just going to disappear with your tail between your legs again?
Well no one counts the East Area, so KCMO is bigger than St. Louis. But overall, St. Louis would not be considered the most unique city in the state of Missouri. There are few if any differences between Kansas City and St. Louis. Not to say both cities are exactly the same, as St. Louis is a tad bit more urban, and I only say a tab bit. Overall neither city unique enough to basically be different than the rest of the state.
I want what you're smoking. St. Louis is not only MUCH older and MUCH more urban than KC, it's also the center of a metro area that has about 800,000 more people than KC. St. Louis is older than the United States, so it is naturally a lot different than the rest of Missouri with regard to history, culture, politics and social dynamics.
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.
