244 replies to this topic

[NCB]

cheeriokid61, on Jul 2 2006, 05:18 PM, said:

I would say New Orleans would be one of the biggest, because of its port.

That's another interesting thing to think about. You could say that if Houston had never been around, the Port of South Louisiana, which currently, even with the Port of Houston competing, is the largest port in the Western Hemisphere in terms of raw tonnage, would have been absolutely huge, and that Mobile's port would also be much larger. But that takes you back to the other "what if" questions. If Galveston had never been destroyed, could its port have become the equivalent of Houston's port today? Would all other Gulf Coast ports have also become quite a bit bigger, and somewhat leveled out the size of the ports instead of just one or two very large ports? And so on..

[Charlotteman]

I seem to be the only proponent of Jacksonville here:)  

Before World War II Jax was the de facto chief city in the state of Florida.  It was the only city with a substantial population.

Back then Miami's population was around 10,000.

Jacksonville and St.Augustine were the destinations of Northern tourists at the time.

The religious element in Jax basically let it be known that Yankees and other heathens were not welcome.  A budding film industry in Jacksonville in the early part of the 20th Century was quashed for filming "un christian movies".

So guess where the film industry at the time went to?  L*O*S  A*N*G*E*L*E*S.

The progressive Northerners started moving further south, further delepleting Jacksonville's diversity and progressivism.

Had Jacksonville been more forward thinking and tolerant, it would still be the powerhouse of the state.  AND the film capital of the world.

But even through it all, what a huge potential Jacksonville still has:)

[monsoon]

Hankster, on Jul 2 2006, 05:00 PM, said:

I think Birmingham, AL has suffered more from Atlanta's tremendous growth than any other city.  About 1950, Birmingham was about the same size as Atlanta and poised to possibly become the leading city in Dixie.  At that time both Nashville and Charlotte were considerably smaller than Birmingham.  Had Birmingham been aggressive and built the leading airport in the southeast, it's possible that the tremendous growth would have been in Birmingham, rather than Atlanta and Birmingham might have become the leading city in the Southeast.

It really had nothing to do with that.  

The entire state of Alabama was greatly hurt by its abuses on Black civil rights in the early 1960s.   Selma, Rosa Parks, marches on the 1965 voting rights act, Boody Sunday, and the very famous photo of Governer George Wallace standing there with the national guard to stop Blacks from going to high school attended by Whites, thrust Alabama into the global limelight as a national poster child of racism.    South Carolina and Mississippi would also carry this label but not nearly as much as Alabama.   Racism was a national problem in that period of time, but Alabama made a very public stand to defend it which is what hurt the development of the state.  

As a result, most of the post airconditioning reconstruction of the South (1965-1990) bypassed Alabama and went to more moderate states such as NC, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee.  Corporations, investors, incubator money, relocations, and new industries just didn't want anything to do with Alabama because of this perception.  This was a period of tremendous growth of the South and most of what you see in the South today happened during this period.   By the time that Alabama, SC, and Mississippi recovered from the memories of this bad time, it was too late.

Any analysis of how the South grew to be as it is today, has to consider the effect of race relations from the last 50 years.

[Newnan]

TBurban, on Jul 2 2006, 04:27 PM, said:

Well sure thats easy.  Miami is a major port city and so is Norfolk, Im sure Norfolk(Hampton Roads) would be a much more bustling port if Miami hadnt been there.  Virginia Beach(Hampton Roads) is also similar to Maimi Beach in Miami.  NOVA could be associated with either Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta.  Its going through tons of sprawl up there.  Sure, some of it might be due to the proximity to DC, but they are each their own city and the big three(Alexandria, Arlington, Rosslyn, etc..) being so close together surely formed a big metro on their own.  The Richmond Metro has a growing population of over 1 million just as the cities I described above have.

Yes, but you're just comparing their characteristics, not their roles as cities- with the exception on Norfolk as a port City, except Norfolk is nowhere near Miami and would not be able to ship to the areas that Miami ships to.

[TBurban]

Newnan, on Jul 2 2006, 06:40 PM, said:

Yes, but you're just comparing their characteristics, not their roles as cities- with the exception on Norfolk as a port City, except Norfolk is nowhere near Miami and would not be able to ship to the areas that Miami ships to.

Sure, but when Miami is gone, New Orleans and Norfolk could be big!  Richmond also has 9 Fortune 500 Companies as of April.

Quote

Richmond has 9 Fortune 500 Companies!

(including Meadwestvaco's recent arrival)

1. Dominion Resources - 123
2. Genworth Financial - 223
3. Circuit City Stores - 226
4. Meadwestvaco - 322
5. Performance Food Group - 349
6. Brinks - 295
7. CarMax - 411
8. Owens & Minor - 443
9. LandAmerica - 500

After MeadWestvaco comes to town, greater Richmond with nine Fortune 500 companies will out shadow Charlotte, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Philadelphia and St. Louis, which have seven each. The top five listed cities are New York City with 44 companies, Houston with 23, Atlanta with 14, Dallas with 11 and Chicago with 10.

Thats pretty good for a city Richmond's size.

Edited by TBurban, 02 July 2006 - 04:57 PM.

[Newnan]

I just don't understand your argument

[krazeeboi]

monsoon, on Jul 2 2006, 06:33 PM, said:

As a result, most of the post airconditioning reconstruction of the South (1965-1990) bypassed Alabama and went to more moderate states such as NC, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee.  Corporations, investors, incubator money, relocations, and new industries just didn't want anything to do with Alabama because of this perception.  This was a period of tremendous growth of the South and most of what you see in the South today happened during this period.   By the time that Alabama, SC, and Mississippi recovered from the memories of this bad time, it was too late.

Alabama and Mississippi I can understand, but as far as SC is concerned, I don't think race relations played into the condition of the state today as much as a general "Old South" attitude, particularly as it relates to Charleston's historical role in the South. For Alabama and Mississippi, you can pretty much point to significant events and personalities that gives it an "Old South" persona to a much greater degree than SC. The only events and personalities relative to SC during the time of the Civil Rights movement that come to mind are the Orangeburg Massacre (which is not really common knowledge) and Strom Thurmond. In that regard, SC wasn't that much different than NC with the Greensboro sit-ins and Jesse Helms (although Strom had more exposure, especially since he ran for president). The Confederate rebel flag didn't really become an issue until the late 90's into the 2000's--which, ironically, was around the same time that talks were occurring about changing Georgia's state flag. So I just think it was a lack of "pro-activeness" on the part of SC's leaders that caused us to not experience the tremendous growth that other places experienced, coupled with an overall "Old South" attitude, and not so much specifically Civil Rights and race relations.

[TBurban]

Newnan, on Jul 2 2006, 08:01 PM, said:

I just don't understand your argument

I wasnt arguing.  I first just stated that a Virginia city could possibly rise and become a large city of the South.  The larger metros have the resources, the trade, and the economy to become a major city.

Edited by TBurban, 02 July 2006 - 06:55 PM.

[monsoon]

krazeeboi, on Jul 2 2006, 08:02 PM, said:

Alabama and Mississippi I can understand, but as far as SC is concerned, I don't think race relations played into the condition of the state today as much as a general "Old South" attitude, particularly as it relates to Charleston's historical role in the South.

As I said earlier, this label did not apply to SC as much as Alabama, but in the late 1960s I remember huge KKKK (Knights of the Klue Klux Klan) rallies right in the city of Myrtle Beach complete with cross burnings, white hoods, marching to cadence, etc.  These rallies were in protests in attempts by the Feds to force school integration on a unwilling population.   At this point Myrtle Beach had already become a major tourist stop stop so it only went to re-enforce the image of SC being a state being racists.  And MB was one of the more liberal parts of SC.  

Strom Thrumond started a political party in the 1948s called the Dixiecrats.   Their motto was "Segregation Forever".  They were blatent racists and proud to run on that as their platform.   This was a very stong national statement on the nature of the political environment in SC.  It got the state a lot of negative national attention as Thurman ran a Presidential candidate in 1948 and he actually won the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina.  This was far worse to SC's image than Jessie Helms was to NC who was a relative latecomer in comparison.  

Likewise in regards to the Confederate Flag on the Capital, most people don't realize that it was only raised there in the 1950s.   The reasons should be pretty obvious.

Like Alabama it was this enviroment that caused much of the investment in the new south to bypass SC.  It wasn't the only reason, as the elite in SC didn't want the investment, but it had a role to play.

[krazeeboi]

Good examples. I didn't mean to downplay any particular instances, but as you stated, compared to Alabama and Mississippi, SC's image wasn't as tainted. Even though that event occurred in Myrtle Beach, I don't think that image is the first thing (if at all) that comes to mind when anyone thinks of Myrtle Beach, just as the Klan-Nazi event in Greensboro in 1979 isn't the first thing that comes to mind (if at all) when one thinks of that city. And if anything, you'd think that Helms' status as a relative latecomer would somewhat work against him, being that times were changing as far as race relations are concerned; Strom's views certainly changed with the times. This is why I believe that progressive political leadership, and not necessarily race related events, provides the greatest contrast between what SC and NC were then and what they are now.

Georgia escaped the "Old South" label largely due to progressive leadership in Atlanta; this is why Georgia's changing of its state flag (which formerly had the Confederate rebel emblem incorporated into it) escaped the exposure and limelight that was afforded to SC surrounding the removal of the flag from atop the Statehouse. If not for that progressive leadership in Atlanta, Georgia would be grouped with Alabama and Mississippi today.

The "SC elite," who reveled in the "glory days" of the past, played the biggest role in stifling growth in this state.

Edited by krazeeboi, 02 July 2006 - 07:49 PM.

[ryanmckibben]

What about Savannah? Large port, good climate, large military presence, great intersate access. Just a thought.

[krazeeboi]

In one respect, we have to ask exactly why the cities that we are nominating aren't as big as the Big Four currently are. Also we have to take into account what role geography plays into making the Big Four as big as they are, and if any other city would be able to pick up that slack. For the characteristics that have fueled growth in the Big Four that aren't so dependent on geography, do the potential replacements have what it takes to excel in those categories? For instance, Atlanta has long been known to attract record numbers of African Americans due to the progressive nature of the city's leadership in the 60's-80's. Did any other city have that attitude so as to fill that void had Atlanta not existed? If the city vanished into thin air now, I suspect that Charlotte would probably pick up where Atlanta left off in that category.

[DruidCity]

In addition to the race thing, Birmingham was hit very hard by the fact that it had a largely industrial economy.

[krazeeboi]

^Very true. In this regard, Birmingham is more like its Rust Belt counterparts.

[kayman]

Birmingham itself is a paradox.  I personally love Birmingham, but I am also highly critical of this city for its shortcomings that could have been prevented.  It has some the categorically same problems that Detroit suffers from such as racial division, inner city decay/suburban prosperity, lack of mass transit/automobile culture, and rust belt facade.  Alabama doesn't help Birmingham at all, for a number of years the state has been Birmingham's (and Huntsville in some degree) biggest enemy.  The state lacks the progressiveness that is to boost Birmingham's stature in the South.  Alabama is a hotbed for what I call inhibitive stupidity, thus it allows itself to fall on its face for no reason repetitively.  The constant demogogs doesn't help either like Roy Moore.  It just generates even farther that we need to weed out the homegrown morons and old heads, and push homegrown idealists to stay and to welcome more progressive outsiders.  Though in recent months they have come realized we are an asset more than a problem.

Birmingham does has black leadership like Atlanta, but paranoid idiots like Mayor Kincaid (with no backbone) and corrupt officials (like State Rep. John Rodgers, Birmingham city councilmen William Bell, and former US Rep Earl Hilliard) has offered no help.  The decisive suburban politcians, who for many years have fought tooth-and-nail against the creation of regional cooperation.   We do have wiser and progressive minds like on the county level like Jefferson County Commissioners like Larry Langford and Shelia Smoot, but we also have indignant anti-urbanism commissioners like Gary White, Mary Buckelew, and Betty Fine Collins that fight against everything that is progressive.  

Atlanta did right by accepting the notion "The City Too Busy to Hate" and became very accepting of different culture as well as lifestyles.  That is something Birmingham should have knew but still seem to not get, SMH.  It is slowly but surely getting this (along with most other Southern cities however), but it should have happened years ago.  

However, Birmingham will overcome this and probably even overshadow many other Southern metros like Nashville, Memphis, New Orleans, Raleigh/Durham, and even Charlotte once the real boom began.  It has the interstate hub status, already established infastructure (biotech, financial, and reputation for being a corporate startup hotbed), and positioning to regain its place as the actual South (expecting FL) #2 city.

Also, here is something a lot people don't know about Birmingham.  The racial, ethnic, and cultural composition of Greater Birmingham is the same percentage as the US as a whole.  That's why is usually a test market for the most products.

Edited by Leonard23, 03 July 2006 - 02:43 PM.

[kayman]

DruidCity, on Jul 2 2006, 10:18 PM, said:

In addition to the race thing, Birmingham was hit very hard by the fact that it had a largely industrial economy.

However, in many ways this will work to its benefit and revitalize itself like Pittsburgh

[kayman]

monsoon, on Jul 2 2006, 05:33 PM, said:

It really had nothing to do with that.  

The entire state of Alabama was greatly hurt by its abuses on Black civil rights in the early 1960s.   Selma, Rosa Parks, marches on the 1965 voting rights act, Boody Sunday, and the very famous photo of Governer George Wallace standing there with the national guard to stop Blacks from going to high school attended by Whites, thrust Alabama into the global limelight as a national poster child of racism.    South Carolina and Mississippi would also carry this label but not nearly as much as Alabama.   Racism was a national problem in that period of time, but Alabama made a very public stand to defend it which is what hurt the development of the state.  

As a result, most of the post airconditioning reconstruction of the South (1965-1990) bypassed Alabama and went to more moderate states such as NC, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee.  Corporations, investors, incubator money, relocations, and new industries just didn't want anything to do with Alabama because of this perception.  This was a period of tremendous growth of the South and most of what you see in the South today happened during this period.   By the time that Alabama, SC, and Mississippi recovered from the memories of this bad time, it was too late.

Any analysis of how the South grew to be as it is today, has to consider the effect of race relations from the last 50 years.

That pretty much sums it up.  Alabama has problems that instead of being solved overnight will take another 2 decades to resolve.  It has learned from these major mistakes and is seriously trying to overcome them.  Alabama is basically the measuring stick to which other Southern states should learn from.  Also, Georgia isn't without major problems because one of them is current governor Sonny Perdue.  

[Jerseyman4]

monsoon, on Jul 2 2006, 07:33 PM, said:

As I said earlier, this label did not apply to SC as much as Alabama, but in the late 1960s I remember huge KKKK (Knights of the Klue Klux Klan) rallies right in the city of Myrtle Beach complete with cross burnings, white hoods, marching to cadence, etc.  These rallies were in protests in attempts by the Feds to force school integration on a unwilling population .........And MB was one of the more liberal parts of SC.

I am a little unclear about the bolded parts specfically.

If a city is unwilling to accept integration but at the same time be liberal, sounds like a contradiction to me. What was MB liberal about in the late 60s/early 70s then? Allowing outsider influence to forever change the face of the Grand Strand such as building high rose hotels?

[Lady Celeste]

Leonard23, on Jul 3 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

Also, Georgia isn't without major problems because one of them is current governor Sonny Perdue.  

I don't like politics too much myself but I must ask....other than current political affiliation (I'm a Whig, so I don't pledge allegiance to either of the two big parties) and his lack of cooperation on the need for statewide/metrowide public transportation, what....in your mind....is wrong with Gov. Perdue?

P.S........while I'm at it, I will also add that if I had to pick the next big four......if the current big four didn't exist.....I would say probably New Orleans, Charlotte, Jacksonville and Nashville...with Louisvile and Richmond rounding out my top Six.

[monsoon]

Jerseyman4, on Jul 3 2006, 04:59 PM, said:

I am a little unclear about the bolded parts specfically.

If a city is unwilling to accept integration but at the same time be liberal, sounds like a contradiction to me. What was MB liberal about in the late 60s/early 70s then? Allowing outsider influence to forever change the face of the Grand Strand such as building high rose hotels?

You might try reading it in context.