If our four largest were gone...

[kayman]

What is your rationale for thinking that Charlotte is developing like Atlanta, and the other cities on your list are not?

I've been seeing over the past few years that more and more than ever it seems that Charlotte wants to be the next Atlanta (even more than Nashville). Look at the path Charlotte is taking, and looks to me very suspiciously like what Atlanta was doing back in the 1970's and 1980's. All cities on that list has sprawl but it who is seeming like trying to race for the ultimate more than anybody else?

[monsoon]

I've been seeing over the past few years that more and more than ever it seems that Charlotte wants to be the next Atlanta (even more than Nashville). Look at the path Charlotte is taking, and looks to me very suspiciously like what Atlanta was doing back in the 1970's and 1980's. All cities on that list has sprawl but it who is seeming like trying to race for the ultimate more than anybody else?

[kayman]

Exactly what path are you talking about? If you are really saying that Charlotte sprawls more than the other cities you have listed, then you would be incorrect. In fact if Birmingham was looking to emulate anyone it ought to be Charlotte as it is the only metro in your list where the central county, Mecklenburg, is responsible for most of the growth in the metro. i.e. The city is urbanizing more than it is sprawling out of control. Contrast that to Jefferson county where there has been a consistant population decline over the past few years, a sure sign of sprawl.

[monsoon]

Like I said before there is a lot more going for it in the infastructure catagory than a lot of other Southern cities do to its location, being home to a major biotechnology and research university, and being hotbed for financial institution startups.

[krazeeboi]

I wouldn't want to Birmingham to follow any aspect of the method that Charlotte has done

[AlabamaGuy2007]

Maybe it would help to look at Birmingham rather than blame another city for Birmingham's issues. I highly doubt the main reason is where it is, is because Atlanta is so large. And faulting Atlanta for sprawl is a generalization that doesn't make any sense in this regard when you consider that almost all the growth in the Birmingham area is in the suburban counties. If people of Birmingham "despise" Atlanta, then I would say that the attitude behind that leads to decisions that hold the city back from being like the city of Atlanta.

[AlabamaGuy2007]

Exactly what path are you talking about? If you are really saying that Charlotte sprawls more than the other cities you have listed, then you would be incorrect. In fact if Birmingham was looking to emulate anyone it ought to be Charlotte as it is the only metro in your list where the central county, Mecklenburg, is responsible for most of the growth in the metro. i.e. The city is urbanizing more than it is sprawling out of control. Contrast that to Jefferson county where there has been a consistant population decline over the past few years, a sure sign of sprawl.

[monsoon]

I don't recall blaming any city for Birmingham's issues. ........

[AlabamaGuy2007]

It's right here in plain english.

If you are going to discuss this issue then at least try to be reasonable about it. Bashing cities which you and certain others have done in this thread do nothing but waste UrbanPlanet's time and it is one of the reasons that we end up closing most of the threads that appear in this section.

[kayman]

You make it seem as though Charlotte has done nothing right for the past several years, including growing local banks into into national financial powerhouses.

And it is very likely that Charlotte and Nashville won't be sitting still anytime soon. I like Birmingham and its definitely got some things going for it, but it is quickly being left in the dust by Charlotte and Nashville in particular. One thing in particular that holds Birmingham back is that the state of Alabama just isn't quite as progressive as North Carolina and Tennessee.

[krazeeboi]

First of all, I didn't say it didn't do anything right (please don't twist my words).

[wrldcoupe4]

How would others view Richmond as a possibility if the "four largest were gone?" I won't pepper my question with boosterism, because I'm curious about the raw opinions of others on the issue?

[AlabamaGuy2007]

How would others view Richmond as a possibility if the "four largest were gone?" I won't pepper my question with boosterism, because I'm curious about the raw opinions of others on the issue?

[krazeeboi]

How would others view Richmond as a possibility if the "four largest were gone?" I won't pepper my question with boosterism, because I'm curious about the raw opinions of others on the issue?

[Pillsbury]

How would others view Richmond as a possibility if the "four largest were gone?" I won't pepper my question with boosterism, because I'm curious about the raw opinions of others on the issue?

[monsoon]

..... The execs of Wachovia moved its world headquarters from W-S to Charlotte back in the late 1990's. ....

[davidzLA]

I appreciate your suggestion, but I don't like the idea of living there.

[davidzLA]

I don't believe anybody who wants Birmingham to progress wants it to become like Atlanta.

[AlabamaGuy2007]

To each his own; I've never moved to Atlanta either. I would simply caution you against approaching a move with the mindset, "Birmingham will be perfect once A, B and C happen," patience can be elusive sometimes and it prefers to learn lessons the hard way whenever possible.

Perhaps the more basic question is, in what ways do you theorize Birmingham would be different were Atlanta not the dominant regional metro? In what ways would it remain the same?

[kayman]

In my opinion, many of the amenities and services Birmingham residents propose can only be supported by a larger, denser population and taxpaying base - light rail, domes, etc. I wouldn't expect an dispreportionate amount of federal or state funding to magically appear. Without a larger base the region would be taxing itself at a higher rate than is likely given the historical record. With a larger population base the region will have the political muscle to push for such projects' funding.

[rivercity123]

Well no. That Wachovia does not exist anymore. Charlotte's First Union took over Wachovia, and then changed the name of the bank to Wachovia since it now owned that name. It's the same as when First Union (dba as Wachovia) took over Birmingham's SouthTrust bank except this time they did not change the name.

[dan326]

^It's amazing how people are still talking about Birmingham.

[rivercity123]

^It's amazing how people are still talking about Birmingham.

[cityboi]

I think Charleston, SC would be larger.

[davidals]

Hmmm...I'll play...

If the big 4 had never been???

Houston -- Galveston, New Orleans, Corpus Christi, Mobile

Dallas -- Ft Worth, Austin or San Antonio

Miami -- Tampa

Atlanta -- toss-up between Charlotte, Winston-Salem, Richmond, Columbia

Some thoughts - lots of varied unexpected historical events laid several cities flat: Galveston (hurricane), Birmingham (civil rights abuses and lingering perceptions), Memphis (smallpox), Norfolk (yellow fever), Charleston (Civil War, a quake, the great depression), Asheville (the great depression). Each of those cities grew very rapidly until those events; suffice to say they would all be much larger today were it not for the localized effect of those events.

An event like Sherman's March destroyed a couple others - Atlanta and Columbia - but those cities were then much smaller and of less influence evn within their own states; paradoxically it gave them the opportunity to rebuild and essentially reinvent themselves. Had it been for progressive leadership, Columbia may well have become the "Atlanta" of the South. Otherwise, the pro-growth race to NC #1 during the early 20th century between Charlotte and Winston-Salem could have put them in that position; or Richmond, due to its' heritage and relative regional size and importance (in spite of being further removed from the geographical center of the South - rail would soon render that factor less relevant).

Miami - a comparatively young city - grew as a port, but also as a resort, a connection to Latin America, and in response to the Keys hurricane of 1935 (and Key West - an older city - being geographically penned in). Thus the only "other Miami" would have to be another Fla coast city, with port potential.

Dallas' rise is tied to oil, but also cattle and plains agriculture, aided and abetted by rail and transportation, so if Dallas hadn't grown, it would have been some other central Texas city - Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth, perhaps Abilene or Waco.