Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg
>Who says so-called “New South” cities don’t have history?
Yankees like me who have been to every southern city and lived in Tennessee. Pittsburgh and Cincinnati each have over a thousand homes like the one you photographed still standing from the 1800's, and those two cities are never labeled by the pop media as "historic". Yes, over 1,000 middle-class homes like that, hundreds of mansions, and tens of thousands of blue collar row houses.
|
That's true but unfortunately you missed my point entirely. Nashville and most southeast metros, of course, have a fraction of historic building stock compared to rustbelt cities that were far larger more than fifty years ago and have been relatively large for well over a century. This should go without saying. However, this does not mean all other "younger" American cities are devoid of history as some fain to pretend. This is why I photographed Germantown to show that Nashville does indeed have a history to its' built environment just like every other American city. This includes Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Charlotte and any other city that's consistently badgered for being "too new."
I must note that there's a certain arrogance that pervades some posters on boards such as these. We all appreciate cities and nice built environments but some act as if a city should be ignored if it cannot mimic a NYC, Chicago, or San Francisco when absolutely nothing in its' history suggests that it should mirror those. Ironically, these "newer" cities seem to be where most Americans are flocking en masse for various reasons.
What gives? Why can't one say that they prefer the older and denser cores of the Northeast or rustbelt instead of being disingenuous by claiming other cities lack history?