244 replies to this topic

[kayman]

Lady Celeste, on Jul 3 2006, 04:44 PM, said:

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.

I don't pledge allegience to neither party myself, but to answer your question two words: STATE FLAG.  I know all about Mr. Perdue resistence to changing the Georgia state flag to one without a confederate emblem on it.  A matter of fact he was the one who force Georgia to change its flag back to one with the confederate emblem on it.

[Jerseyman4]

^I did... but at first i didnt catch on to that. I now understand the context because you were implying that despite how MB was protesting the integration order from the Federal Government yet MB was overall a liberal city (tourism is a key player in that)    

The contradiction however, bigotry and liberalism does not mix well at all which was what i was thinking at first. Now i read and understood the context so my bad over there

[PeninsulaKiddo]

Newnan, on Jul 2 2006, 04:40 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.

If, say, a hurricane worse than Katrina and Andrew combined were to hit Miami and cripple it's shipping, I think the shipping lines would divert to one of two remaining, non-core-4 cities; New Orleans (which is coming back fairly strongly in development) and my hometown, Hampton Roads (Norfolk), which in terms of shipping, they're not too-too far, and both New Orleans and Norfolk are more than capable of picking up any slack.

I think that comparing Hampton Roads to the Miami metro is pretty simple; when one thinks of Miami, they think of transportation/shipping and recreation.  The Port of Hampton Roads is actually busier than Miami as-is (1.9 million TEUs in 2005 compared to Miami's 1.1 million -- http://cohenasset.co...s/twr_2q06.html  half-way down the page there's a chart of US ports) therefore if Miami didn't exist, I feel Norfolk would be poised to see greater growth than it is currently undergoing; and bear in mind the capacity of the Port of Hampton Roads is slated to double in the coming decades (we also have the deepest waters of any East Coast harbor).  

As for the two remaining spots... I'd say Charlotte (to replace Atlanta, clearly), and Austin, TX to replace the Metroplex.  Both cities are already growing rapidly and are in comparable locations geographically speaking.  Austin's greastest assets are its quality of living and the beauty of the existing city, as well as the government presence, and Charlotte's is its enormous financial offices and the international airport (sound similar to Atlanta?).  This is looking at America now, not "what could have been", meaning, only taking into account the economic, geographic etc. factors of today and ignoring, say, the racial issues mentioned about Birmingham, AL and other southern cities.

Interesting topic, though, I must say.

Edited by PeninsulaKiddo, 03 July 2006 - 07:59 PM.

[krazeeboi]

PeninsulaKiddo, on Jul 3 2006, 09:58 PM, said:

If, say, a hurricane worse than Katrina and Andrew combined were to hit Miami and cripple it's shipping, I think the shipping lines would divert to one of two remaining, non-core-4 cities; New Orleans (which is coming back fairly strongly in development) and my hometown, Hampton Roads (Norfolk), which in terms of shipping, they're not too-too far, and both New Orleans and Norfolk are more than capable of picking up any slack.

Charleston, which ranked ahead of Norfolk in 2005 in terms of TEUs, would give both a run for their money. Charleston's case would be bolstered even more by the fact that it's the port that Charlotte, which you pegged as Atlanta's "replacement," typically uses.

Edited by krazeeboi, 03 July 2006 - 09:06 PM.

[suburban george3]

OK, if the cities existed but had not developed to their influence/size of today this is what I think:
     Dallas would probably be replaced by Austin/San Antonio as others have theorized.
     Houston would probably benefit New Orleans unless there was a Galveston renaissance.
     Atlanta isn't as clear-cut.  While I think Charlotte or Birmingham would make a good choice, let's not forget Chattanooga.  It was a rail hub and if Atlanta hadn't been the go-go place during reconstruction, maybe some of those far-thinking citizens who made Atlanta their home would move up the road a bit.
     Miami,  I'm not so sure about.  I'll vote Jacksonville right now.

If the cities "never existed:"
     Dallas, the same.
     Houston, New Orleans would be a powerhouse.
     Atlanta, still a toss-up.  I think Chattanooga would not be in the picture in this scenario, it would be between Charlotte and Birmingham.
     Miami, still going for Jacksonville.

[Lady Celeste]

Leonard23, on Jul 3 2006, 05:33 PM, said:

I don't pledge allegience to neither party myself, but to answer your question two words: STATE FLAG.  I know all about Mr. Perdue resistence to changing the Georgia state flag to one without a confederate emblem on it.  A matter of fact he was the one who force Georgia to change its flag back to one with the confederate emblem on it.

As a registered voter in the state of Georgia, that is in fact NOT true. Where did you get that bit of information? He is now in "trouble" with the flaggers [the people who wanted the old flag] because he did NOT change the flag back. Now we can't have it both ways. How can a governor force a state to change it's flag?

Gov Perdue knew that the ideas of the voters of the state had changed. While Georgia may be a red state, there is a greater precentage of voters in the metro area than the rest of the state. Half of the state's population live in metropolitan Atlanta. Gov Perdue knew that with the influx of voters (conservative and liberal) from other parts of the country, that a referendum would once and for all put this matter to rest. If you ask me, he played a mighty political hand. At the time of his first run for governor, he was not well known to many in metro Atlanta. He used....yeap...used...his rural Georgia upbring to woo over the flaggers and "common" folk who happen to vote republican. Of course when you add the republicans who will vote for someone just because they are republican, he knew he would win the state.

Gov Perdue had political aspirations. He knew how to play the fiddle. The flaggers helped him get in and then he turned on them. He knew that metro Atlanta held more voters numerically than out state Georgia. When they asked him to change the flag back from what Gov Barnes had done, he put it up for a referndum. Great move. This way, he could say..."well I did what you asked me"...without having to get his hands dirty. Georgians who were not native to the south...many who live in metro Atlanta....could care less about the rebel flag. It held not historical meaning to them. Of course, the political conscientious black voters of metro Atlanta were not going to vote for the flag. Then you had native southerners of metro Atlanta and the business community of Atlanta who just wanted the issue to go away.

Gov Perdue knew these groups numbers added up to be greater than the flaggers....especially when the klan came to rally for the flaggers.

I wrote all of that to show that Gov Perdue did NOT change the flag back. He followed procedures to kill the old flag once and for all. Yes,  the original flag briefly came back. You can not have a referendum only on the new flag. How could that fly? The referendum asked the voters of Georgia, would you want the pre-1956 flag, the 1956-present flag (which included the rebel battle emblem) or the new flag commissioned under Gov Barnes. He had to do it that way. The voters voted and today Georgia flys the pre-1956 state flag. He dodged a political nightmare and a potentially divisive issue. His advisor is no fool......that's why he will win a second term.

Now that's the way I remember the issue.

P.S.- Everyone please forgive me from diverting from this great topic. I really dislike sidebars in such thoughtful discussions. My apologies to everyone......

[krazeeboi]

Thanks for giving us that bit of info, Celeste; I wasn't really sure of how it all took place.

[lammius]

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.

I dunno.  I think Virginia's cities may have had a greater chance to take off if DC, Baltimore, Philly and NYC weren't around than if metros in the Deep South disappeared (with the exception of NOVA, as DC was the draw that made NOVA happen).  Virginia's urban pockets are more like satellites off the southern end of the northeastern megalopolis.  The port at Hampton Roads IS busier than Miami, and its competitors on the East Coast are NY/NJ and Charleston.  Richmond could have become greater than it is, perhaps if DC weren't 100 miles away.  And NOVA, yeah there are cities there, but with the exception of Alexandria, little would be there if DC had not exploded into a huge metropolis in the 20th century.  IMO VA's competitors are in the Mid-Atlantic, not the Deep South.

[Greenville]

TBurban, on Jul 2 2006, 05:58 PM, said:

I mean it is Virginia still.  Places like Arlington, Rosslyn and Alexandria are very much Virginia.

Those places are essentially DC suburbs that have borrowed land from Virginia.  Nothing about them really fits the vibe I get anywhere else in Virginia.  That is great, though, because Virginia has something for everyone - mountains, coast, big city suburbs (Northern VA), and a nice mid-sized capital city that is growing (Richmond).

[krazeeboi]

Well you've got to remember that those places were in the District at one time. Its irregular shape somewhat irks me.

[vdogg]

lammius, on Jul 4 2006, 10:50 PM, said:

I dunno.  I think Virginia's cities may have had a greater chance to take off if DC, Baltimore, Philly and NYC weren't around than if metros in the Deep South disappeared (with the exception of NOVA, as DC was the draw that made NOVA happen).  Virginia's urban pockets are more like satellites off the southern end of the northeastern megalopolis.  The port at Hampton Roads IS busier than Miami, and its competitors on the East Coast are NY/NJ and Charleston.  Richmond could have become greater than it is, perhaps if DC weren't 100 miles away.  And NOVA, yeah there are cities there, but with the exception of Alexandria, little would be there if DC had not exploded into a huge metropolis in the 20th century.  IMO VA's competitors are in the Mid-Atlantic, not the Deep South.

I agree with this assessment. Other than the port its really hard to find a direct correlation between any Va city and the cities mentioned. Norfolks closest southern counterpart is probably Charleston. That being said most of the time when the media is discussing "port competition" in this area they refer to New York. Now if the 4 cities lammius mentioned disappeared I think that Richmond would take DC's slot (for obvious reasons) and Norfolk Baltimores (though HR has an almost borough type setup like NYC saying we could take their spot would be a stretch). If we haven't wiped Miami off the face of the earth I would put them squarely in NYC's spot. Can't quite figure out who i'd but for Philly though.

[krazeeboi]

^Wilmington.

[monsoon]

In the 20th century, ports were not the big population generators as they were in the 19th century.  The biggest reason was that the railroads were a great equalizer on where a port could be put but that was not he case in the first 1/2 of the 19th century.    NYC grew to the size that it did in the 1800s because NY State had the foresight to build the Erie Canal in 1808.   This gave NYC a direct transportation link to the vast resources of the USA around the Great Lakes and midwest.  It had no effective competiton for decades with this access to the Midwest.  NYC grew to the largest city in the USA in part because this was the only place that trade between the USA's midwest and Europe, (the biggest economic powerhouse in the world) could take place.   The Erie Canal gave riches to NYC, and the metro area, at a time when it really counted and the effects last until even today.  

The Erie Canal was a technical marvel when it was built and people came from around the world to see it.   The railroads made it obsolete however and in the centuries since it was built, much of it has disappeared.   By the time the railroads and later the highways made it possible to locate a port anywhere there was good water, Charleston, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Miami, New Orleans, etc, there was no longer a monopoly, and trade had become more globalized.   Don't forget that 100 years of reconstruction also held back most of the South including all of its ports except for possibly Miami (connections to the Southern hemisphere) and New Orleans, (mouth of Mississippi river and oil)  But keep in mind that until the 1960s, economic control of these places remained in NYC.  

Today, modern container ports are being built that require very few personnel to operate.  I saw a program on an almost completely automated port in Rotterdamn where the automation eliminated almost all aspects of handeling the containers.  Even the surface transportation was automated.   I understand another one of these things is being built somewhere on the west coast of the USA to deal with the huge trade with Asia, mainly with China.   As ships get larger and are unable to pass through the Panama Canal, I see moves such as this putting every Southern port city at a big disadvantage.

[redjeep77]

monsoon, on Jul 2 2006, 09:33 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.   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.

I hate to break it to you, but the current georgia flag doesn't have the confederate battle flag on it, it has the 1st national flag of the confederacy on it.  They took out the corner flag, and put the entire flag on it.  The only difference is the little gold logo in the top left.  However in doing so, i think that they accomplished what they wanted.  Eliminate the flag associated with "hate" and kept the historical ties without the offense.

[monsoon]

redjeep77, on Jul 5 2006, 10:25 AM, said:

I hate to break it to you, ....

What does that mean?  No where did I mention the GA flag.

[redjeep77]

oops, i quoted the wrong quote...that was for krazeeboi's post.  Sorry metro

Let's try this one again...

I hate to break it to you, but the current georgia flag doesn't have the confederate battle flag on it, it has the 1st national flag of the confederacy on it. They took out the corner flag, and put the entire flag on it. The only difference is the little gold logo in the top left. However in doing so, i think that they accomplished what they wanted. Eliminate the flag associated with "hate" and kept the historical ties without the offense.

krazeeboi, on Jul 2 2006, 09:47 PM, said:

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 redjeep77, 05 July 2006 - 08:53 AM.

[Lady Celeste]

redjeep77, on Jul 5 2006, 08:25 AM, said:

I hate to break it to you, but the current georgia flag doesn't have the confederate battle flag on it, it has the 1st national flag of the confederacy on it.  They took out the corner flag, and put the entire flag on it.  The only difference is the little gold logo in the top left.  However in doing so, i think that they accomplished what they wanted.  Eliminate the flag associated with "hate" and kept the historical ties without the offense.

This is the current flag for the state of Georgia:



This is the 1st National Flag of the Confederacy or one that was closest to the Georgia flag I could find:


(the most common flag used with a likeliness to the current Georgia state flag)

While they are close, they are not one in the same. One major difference is the center crest. We can write that off to be cosmetic. To be historically different there would have to be a major difference in the meaning or historical meaning. To find that, one only has to count the stars present on either flag. The current flag of Georgia has thirteen stars in the upper left hand side. This represents its place as one of the thirteen original colonies. Clearly not supporting a notion or tie to the confederacy. The original 1st Flag of the Confederacy had 11 stars representing the states that had successfully seceded from the Union. These stars did not include those states with both union and confederate governments. (Kentucky and Missouri)

Interesting of note:

Quote

In Oct. 1861, a rump legislative body in Missouri dissolved the bond to the union and joined the confederacy. Kentucky was recognized as neutral at first but later was represented in the Confederate congress, bringing the stars to 13. However many flagmakers only recognized those states that were able to maintain state governments within their own territory, so that 41% of the over 300 surviving STARS AND BARS have only 11 stars. Missouri and Kentucky were overrun by the union and maintained representation in the federal government.

One interesting variation is the 12 star version, used by Nathan Bedford Forest, who swore not to include the star for Georgia, "as long as a yankee remains on Georgia's soil."

Sidebar: I did find an interesting bit of information though. There was a 1st National Flag of the Confederacy that did have 13 stars on it. Which would appear as the present day GA flag without the crest. Here is a write up I saw about that.

Quote

The first National Confederate Flag was called the "Stars and Bars", said to resemble the Austrian flag, designed by a Austrian major. It was a horizonal tri-color red, white, red, with a blue canton containing a varying number of stars, ranging from 7 (the original members) to 15, including 11 members, 2 states that had representatives in both congresses, namely Missouri and Kentucky, and 2 representing those states which despite occupation by the federals, rallied to the cause of Southern independence. Most common were 11. Due to it's similarity to the Federal flag, it was one of the factors that led to the death of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson by his own troops.

My source: Information on the 1st National Confederate Flag

So is the current Georgia state flag federal or confederate? We may never know. Most people aren't going to want to take the time to research the historical differences or similarities to even care. As long as the current flag is not associated with people who seek to divide (let me make one thing clear, I am not lumping the people who value the confederate flag in it's historical significance with those who are parts of hate groups who beotchized the flag in the first place. I know there is a diffeence) then the populace is happy.

I personally would like to think that the flag is of a federal nature. We were one of the original thriteen colonies long before we were a part of the confederacy.

Also note Redjeep:

Krazeeboi said:

Quote

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.

Now I'm not Civil War history buff but isn't his comment true. He did not say that the current flag does not have any historical ties to the confederacy (although that could go either way), he said it does not bear the confederate rebel emblem. Now I may be wrong but I thought that the Condereate Battle flag (rebel) and the 1st National Flag of the Confederacy were not one in the same. If they are not then I don't see the need to rebut Krazeeboi because he is historically correct.

[depechecureguyorl]

As usual, leave it to UP Forumers to take the thread completely off topic. Of course, it's now turned into "Why City X suffered as a result of the progress from City Y" and "State Flag's History".

To take is back on topic: If the "Big 4 Were Gone", they'd be replaced by IMO:

Houston - New Orleans
Atlanta - Nashville
Dallas - Charlotte
Miami - Orlando

[redjeep77]

Lady Celeste, on Jul 5 2006, 11:28 AM, said:

This is the current flag for the state of Georgia:



This is the 1st National Flag of the Confederacy or one that was closest to the Georgia flag I could find:


(the most common flag used with a likeliness to the current Georgia state flag)

While they are close, they are not one in the same. One major difference is the center crest. We can write that off to be cosmetic. To be historically different there would have to be a major difference in the meaning or historical meaning. To find that, one only has to count the stars present on either flag. The current flag of Georgia has thirteen stars in the upper left hand side. This represents its place as one of the thirteen original colonies. Clearly not supporting a notion or tie to the confederacy. The original 1st Flag of the Confederacy had 11 stars representing the states that had successfully seceded from the Union. These stars did not include those states with both union and confederate governments. (Kentucky and Missouri)

Interesting of note:
Sidebar: I did find an interesting bit of information though. There was a 1st National Flag of the Confederacy that did have 13 stars on it. Which would appear as the present day GA flag without the crest. Here is a write up I saw about that.
My source: Information on the 1st National Confederate Flag

So is the current Georgia state flag federal or confederate? We may never know. Most people aren't going to want to take the time to research the historical differences or similarities to even care. As long as the current flag is not associated with people who seek to divide (let me make one thing clear, I am not lumping the people who value the confederate flag in it's historical significance with those who are parts of hate groups who beotchized the flag in the first place. I know there is a diffeence) then the populace is happy.

I personally would like to think that the flag is of a federal nature. We were one of the original thriteen colonies long before we were a part of the confederacy.

Also note Redjeep:

Krazeeboi said:
Now I'm not Civil War history buff but isn't his comment true. He did not say that the current flag does not have any historical ties to the confederacy (although that could go either way), he said it does not bear the confederate rebel emblem. Now I may be wrong but I thought that the Condereate Battle flag (rebel) and the 1st National Flag of the Confederacy were not one in the same. If they are not then I don't see the need to rebut Krazeeboi because he is historically correct.

I never ment to "rebut" krazeeboi, but rather to shed some light on what i see in the flag. Yes it's true that GA did a "smart" move by avoiding the negative exposure, but lets be honest....that flag is pretty darn close to the first national flag of the CSA.  As much as you'd like to think that it's for the 13 original colonies, i'd be willing to bet it's origins are otherwise.  As someone pointed out earlier, lets not get off topic here (and i don't want to start a blog war with anyone).  happy 5th of july everyone

[codyg1985]

Leonard23, on Jul 3 2006, 03:17 PM, said:

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.

Those reasons are why Birmingham must revitalize itself so that Birmingham can experience the boom that other southeastern cities have enjoyed for decades.  The leadership in Birmingham (and in the state) has always been anti-progressive for some rhyme or reason; people and politicians are scared to death of change.  Now that the racial clouds have passed out from over Birmingham and the state of Alabama, now there isn't really anything positive at all coming from this state, and if there is, no one hears about it.  Only the negative perceptions from the Civil Rights era are what come from Birmingham on the national scene.

I wished I could agree with you about Birmingham overshadowing Nashville, Memphis, NO, Raleigh/Durham, and Charlotte, but right now I just don't see it happening.  It is kinda like a chicken-and-egg problem for Birmingham.  People have to be convinced to move back to Birmingham, but before that can happen, the violence must end.  In order for the violence in Birmingham to end, a crucial step is the improvment of the school system.  Improvements in the school system can only come from a larger tax base, and one primary way to increase the tax base is to increase the population with middle-class citizens. Rinse and repeat.

There are a lot of people moving into condos and townhouses in downtown Birmingham, and downtown is a safe place to be, but all of the news of the violence in other parts of the city give the perception that the entire city, including downtown, is a shooting gallery.   The local media dwell on the violence instead of taking a more progressive stand and reporting on some of the good things going on in the city that may (*gasp*) get people to actually move into Birmingham instead of saying "Gee, I am glad I don't live there.  I  only work there."

Birmingham has been hurt by everything mentioned in this thread: the regional airport going to Atlanta, the industrial rust-belt effect, and especially the race-related violence of the 60's.  Only now is the city and the state beginning to overcome these social and economic barriers, but it is going to take a lot more than what's going on now to push the Magic City into the limelight, and in a good way.