Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno
The Problem with the urban enthusiast here is that unless the city was primarily built in the 19th century its "inauthentic" or "Not really a city" for some reason.
As I have said before when they complain about there "not being a culture" in newer cities what they really mean is "Its not the same as I am used to back east/Up north" Places cant "not have a culture" its just weather you find that culture appealing or not.
|
And that’s just simply a stupid standard. If we are going to take that into account, European cities may even blow past some of our most “urban” accomplishments, which they do. However, I don’t see an hierarchy or set definition of what’s urban and what’s not. If it functions as such, it is was it is.
But considering the question of this thread since I didn’t answer it in my rant...
The second spot for the Sunbelt is pretty much up for grabs. LA will always be on top no matter what since it’s so far ahead of the group. The Bay Area (even including SF) is in the conversation because whether people like it or not, California was essentially the first Sunbelt state. It grew to its large size today largely because of weather, just like Florida, Texas, and all the others. It isn’t cheap anymore, but that’s just because the limit has been reached possibly physically and has also been artificially created via zoning, NIMBYs, etc.
Plus, isn’t DC somewhat considered Sunbelt or is it fully a part of the NE?