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.
You have been in City-Data for quite a while and I know your standard routine. The South is good and the North is evil bad.
And btw, I do not recall you taken even ZERO interest in anything historic before.
Haha, right! Tom Lennox set his location as "The better side of the Mason-Dixon Line" and he never strays from that simple mantra on any possible topic.
Haha, right! Tom Lennox set his location as "The better side of the Mason-Dixon Line" and he never stays from that simple mantra on any possible topic.
Exactly! He's nothing but an apologist with an anti-North, pro-South agenda. You guys should see how some of us over in the Maryland forum have to put up with him Like how can you not consider Baltimore historic? Or even Philadelphia!?!? THE ORIGINAL CAPITAL OF THE UNITED STATES!!! THAT'S NOT HISTORIC ENOUGH FOR YOU TOMMY!?!?
As for the part in bold, apparently he must actually think that Maryland is still Southern (These days, the Mason-Dixon Line is basically blurred). Whether he likes it or not, it's a Mid-Atlantic state with an ever-growing Northeastern influence with an Appalachian vibe in Western Maryland and Southern culture in the Eastern Shore and parts of Southern Maryland.
I used to live near Baltimore and always felt the city was old and depressing for the MOST part (I do qualify Fells Point as historic and maybe Hampden but that's about it). I don't think Baltimore has anywhere close to the charm of historic cities like Charleston or Savannah. I love the historic charm of the old South, and also the modern cities of Texas and the Southwest. The Southeast is actually a good mix of charming historic cities and bustling new cities like Charlotte and Atlanta. Atlanta WOULD be more historic if it wasn't burned down and pillaged during the war. But as a result its a more modern city like Charlotte despite its antebellum history.
Might add St. Louis as an "old" city despite the very impressive waterfront there. But once you get past the downtown waterfront the city is pretty gritty. Baltimore really was the same way. And Detroit too.
Atlanta wasn't very large when it was burned by Sherman and it recovered quickly. The loss of historic buildings in Atlanta is due to lack of preservation efforts/urban renewal although it does have more historic buildings than most know or give it credit for. The problem is that the most historic parts of the urban core aren't the most active and/or tourist-friendly.
Surprised by this actually. I've never been to Portland but most cities in the West seem relatively new with the exceptions of San Francisco and Los Angeles given that most of the west was only developed in the 20th century. Kansas City is the easternmost city that didn't feel super modern to me. Wasn't most of the Portland area built up in the past few decades?
Well, let's see. They had to come up to Oregon to file the plat when they layed out the city of San Francisco because there were no courthouses in California. So yeah, Oregon (and Portland) has been around a while.
And no, Portland wasn't "built up" in the past few decades. The rest of the country just realized it was here around about then.
Well the thread topic is based completely on subjective opinion, but I think this area in Chelsea, MA https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Chels...216.05,,0,6.92
is probably what the OP means, Old but not particularly attractive.
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.