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.
Hollywood is so much an extension of LA, it's actually a part of the city! I assume you mean West Hollywood?
Malibu doesn't feel like an extension of LA though. It's more than a 30 minute drive to Santa Monica alone and there's nothing along that drive except for pretty mountains and water.
My bad, I meant Beverly Hills which is a separate city.
Historically, there used to be a very big divide where Whites would say they lived in "Washington" (which evokes images of the Federal Government, the White House, the Capitol, and the rich wealthy neighborhoods like Capitol Hill and sometimes Georgetown) whereas Blacks would say they lived in "DC" (which became synonymous with Black culture, Go-Go, Blues, Jazz, and the 'Chocolate City' neighborhoods).
So the distinction mattered. Of course, DC has become a city of transplants, so the use of 'Washington' has fallen by the wayside and most young people just refer to it as DC. But in the wealthiest neighborhoods, you'll still hear 'Washington' more in use, as "D.C." has an edge to it.
Of course, there's a big historical reason for that.
By law, only this part of D.C. is actually "Washington":
The City of Washington was formally abolished in 1871 by the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. To this day, it doesn't exist. So anytime somebody says "Washington," they are referring to a city that exists in paper. And it only exists in paper because the 1871 Organic Act says so: "that portion of said District included within the present limits of the city of Washington shall continue to be known as the city of Washington."
The D.C. municipal code still has laws that differ between areas that were formerly in the 'City of Washington' and areas that were outside of it. For example: https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council...ns/47-704.html
One of the big civic battles of the 19th century was the "incursion" of Blacks into 'Washington' proper during the Great Migration. Local leaders fought mightily to keep Blacks confined to 'DC' but outside of 'Washington'.
Here is a map of the former "City of Washington" superimposed on D.C. writ large:
Can you tell where D.C. ended and Washington began? The northern border of 'Washington' is glaring.
So over time DC came to refer to the Black areas, and Washington to the wealthy Whites. Those lines of segregation are still there, with Whites the majority in nearly every part of the 'City of Washington' and Blacks still the majority east of the Anacostia River. You'll even sometimes hear grumbling from older Blacks that "DC" was culturally appropriated as a term by liberal Whites.
Hope this clarifies!
This is absolutely fascinating! I wish I could rep this post x1000. Thanks for sharing this knowledge.
Historically, there used to be a very big divide where Whites would say they lived in "Washington" (which evokes images of the Federal Government, the White House, the Capitol, and the rich wealthy neighborhoods like Capitol Hill and sometimes Georgetown) whereas Blacks would say they lived in "DC" (which became synonymous with Black culture, Go-Go, Blues, Jazz, and the 'Chocolate City' neighborhoods).
So the distinction mattered. Of course, DC has become a city of transplants, so the use of 'Washington' has fallen by the wayside and most young people just refer to it as DC. But in the wealthiest neighborhoods, you'll still hear 'Washington' more in use, as "D.C." has an edge to it.
Of course, there's a big historical reason for that.
By law, only this part of D.C. is actually "Washington":
The City of Washington was formally abolished in 1871 by the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. To this day, it doesn't exist. So anytime somebody says "Washington," they are referring to a city that exists in paper. And it only exists in paper because the 1871 Organic Act says so: "that portion of said District included within the present limits of the city of Washington shall continue to be known as the city of Washington."
The D.C. municipal code still has laws that differ between areas that were formerly in the 'City of Washington' and areas that were outside of it. For example: https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council...ns/47-704.html
One of the big civic battles of the 19th century was the "incursion" of Blacks into 'Washington' proper during the Great Migration. Local leaders fought mightily to keep Blacks confined to 'DC' but outside of 'Washington'.
Here is a map of the former "City of Washington" superimposed on D.C. writ large:
Can you tell where D.C. ended and Washington began? The northern border of 'Washington' is glaring.
So over time DC came to refer to the Black areas, and Washington to the wealthy Whites. Those lines of segregation are still there, with Whites the majority in nearly every part of the 'City of Washington' and Blacks still the majority east of the Anacostia River. You'll even sometimes hear grumbling from older Blacks that "DC" was culturally appropriated as a term by liberal Whites.
Hope this clarifies!
Very interesting. Not being from the area I just assumed "DC" was the universal term for the area. I didn't know "Washington" was codespeak also.
Lakewood OH and East Cleveland OH are very similar to the bordering neighborhoods of Cleveland and Lakewood has rapid Transit
That's not true. While Cleveland, and specifically the Glenville and Collinwood neighborhoods bordering East Cleveland, have some blighted pockets, their decay is nowhere near that of EC's -- EC is on a totally different level when it comes to urban decay and loss of essential services. And University Circle and Little Italy, which are 2 other Cleveland neighborhoods that border EC are trendy and gentrifying (as is much of lower Glenville) and have no blight at all -- they possess the exact opposite. EC has rapid transit, too, as the eastern terminus for RTA's heavy-rail Red Line, but that's about all the 2 cities share at this point.
The only viable route to saving EC is by having Cleveland annex it -- but the foolish EC city council balked at this despite approval given by EC's wise mayor at the time -- a good guy who EC's city council proceeded to recall from office -- par for the course for that misguided suburb.
The suburbs of Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights carry over more of their neighboring Cleveland neighborhoods than does East Cleveland (particularly Cleveland Heights around Cedar-Fairmount and Coventry) ... and Lakewood? ... yes, I agree.
With its relatively small area and Buffalo city borders unchanged since 1854, every suburb that touches the City Limits, with the exception of the small area adjacent to the Town of Amherst, are visually and functionally nearly identical to the adjacent city neighborhoods. It may take the keen eye of a local to recognize they are different municipalities. The further one travels away from the city, however, the more changes become apparent as newer and more "suburban" forms begin to predominate.
Functionally, all of the adjacent suburbs are extensions of the city for services and shopping, with the region's largest and busiest malls and shopping areas all outside the city limits. The region's bus service extends into all of the first ring suburbs, and many extend further. Schools and other government functions are all separate, except for regional water and sewer authorities.
For Birmingham, Mountain Brook would definitely have to be in the discussion. Lots of "old money" residences there, and it borders the botanical gardens and Birmingham zoo. Pretty smooth transition there, with lots of quaint shops and residences in the area. Hoover is a nice suburb, but it's also very new, very commercial, and little of Hoover abuts Birmingham proper. I think the nicest parts of Hoover are also the nicest parts of the BHM metro, but Hoover has a totally different feel than the areas closer to downtown. It's more "nouveau riche", less dense and feels more like a generic American suburb.
For Des Moines, the only answer would be Valley Junction. While officially a neighborhood of West Des Moines, Valley Junction is very distinct from the rest of WDM with its railroad heritage and much older architecture (much of which predates WWII). Many charming shops and restaurants dot the area, plus it is where the historic Val Air concert hall resides. Valley Junction cannot be compared to Mountain Brook or any other "old money" suburb as it is distinctly middle-class in nature (truth be told, the Des Moines metro is almost completely devoid of "elite" suburbs or neighborhoods, but has no shortage of "upper middle class" areas, particularly in Johnston and the western parts of WDM), but outside of the Beaverdale neighborhood, no other part of the metro offers its historic charm.
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.
