The South's next rising star(s)

[davidzLA]

I don't think Miami will ever be on par with NYC, LA, SF and Chicago. There is too much ground to make up and it isn't like those places are in a decline.

That sounds right to me also, although anything's possible with possibly denser development over long timeframes and sunbelt appeal. But I'd think of Miami less resembling New York or London, more like America's Barcelona.

[davidals]

It seems as if people are posting cities that are already known. My list are rising stars(doesn't mean that they will ever get New York or Miami status or even New Orleans or Atlanta status) are Mobile, Ala., Baton Rouge, La., Shreveport La., Birmingham Ala., and Knoxville, Tn.

Cities like Austin, Charlotte, Orlando, and Nashville have already began to make names for themselves, but the cities listed above have yet to emerge as the next hot places of the south.

No real reason, but I'll root for some smaller places off the top of my head:

Starkville MS:

Pros - major university, hot summers but othewise good climate, equidistant to some bigger metros (Birmingham, Jackson, Memphis)

Con - no interstate access

Gainesville FL:

Pros - major university, major N-S interstate, manageable size but close to bigger cities (Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville), N Fla is less crowded - for the moment - than S Fla

Cons - college towns can be a little economically weird, as a non-coastal FL city those summers are Africa hot, and the usual FL climatological risks still exist

Greenville NC:

Pros - apart from the top ten and the big 3 metros it's the fastest growing smaller NC city, major research university, hot summers but otherwise good climate, close to coast, between the Triangle and Tidewater VA metros, nearby military presence (Goldsboro) adds a little extra stimulus to economy, close to Global TransPark

Cons - no interstate (though close), prospering town surrounded by the most economically depressed area in the state, nascent sprawl issues, close to Global TransPark

Blacksburg / Radford / Christiansburg / Roanoke VA:

Pros - Major N-S interstate, fairly close to several bigger metros (Richmond, DC, Triad, Charlotte), decent climate (a little harsh in the winter), scenic, several big universities in the area

Cons - Metro is a little spread out and unfocused, those interstates don't directly connect with any neighboring metros

Macon AND/OR Athens GA:

Pros - Major univ in Athens, fairly enviable cultural/musical history in both, both are close to Atlanta but not absorbed into metro Atl sprawl, lack of an interstate in Athens may be a virtue when considering the Atl factor, 2 interstates (with a possible 3rd) in Macon, reasonable distance from coast and mountains, military presence near Macon adds a to economy, the usual Southern climate strengths and weaknesses

Cons - Atlanta's dominance of Georgia's economy and (to a lesser extent) cultural atmosphere

Charleston WV:

Pros - WV is the butt of so much merciless humor they have nowhere to go but up (switch WV to MS and it would also apply to #1), scenic city forced into a certain amount of compact growth by geographic constraints, an Eastern midpoint between the Sun Belt and the Rust Belt - think creatively and they could reinvent themselves as the best of both, 3 interstates (with Charlotte, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Lexington, Richmond all 3-5 hr direct interstate driving)

Cons - WV as the butt of so much merciless humor, legit economic issues in the state, potential serious environmental issues (most of the city is wedged into a steep river valley) that would arise with any unexpected boom, and gosh those winters can get intense

Edited December 14, 2006 by davidals

[reednavy05]

Nashville has already established itsself as the South's 2nd city. Florida is not southern, it is almost all transplants from the North. Charlotte is the South's 3rd city, because it has no real international identity, othern than BofA and Wachovia, Nashville is know the world over for music. Atlanta, will always be the Cpital of the South as economic wise, but Montgomery will always be the South's original capital

[krazeeboi]

Nashville has already established itsself as the South's 2nd city. Florida is not southern, it is almost all transplants from the North. Charlotte is the South's 3rd city, because it has no real international identity, othern than BofA and Wachovia, Nashville is know the world over for music. Atlanta, will always be the Cpital of the South as economic wise, but Montgomery will always be the South's original capital

[watnow1425]

Nashville has already established itsself as the South's 2nd city. Florida is not southern, it is almost all transplants from the North. Charlotte is the South's 3rd city, because it has no real international identity, othern than BofA and Wachovia, Nashville is know the world over for music. Atlanta, will always be the Cpital of the South as economic wise, but Montgomery will always be the South's original capital

huh? So being known for your music makes you number 2? I'm guessing you don't consider Texas as a southern state as you seem to have forgotten about Dallas and Houston.

[NcSc74]

:huh:I had to piggyback on that krazee- WOW lets talk in reality terms and not mere boosterism...I consider ATL and Dallas as a economic tie...the souths 2nd city is Houston. Now lets move down another tier. Not to knock Nashville but I think it is more on par with Raleigh, Richmond, Louisville and nipping at their heels is Columbia, Greenville, Norfolk, Birmingham. As a matter of fact you have to make a case for Tampa having more of a national status than Charlotte. Really Charlotte has just now come on the scene for the last 10 years or so. However those banks go along way to put the region in the national view and be careful we all know that BOA is the banking equivalent to the evil empire. They are everywhere but you just don't know it...

Edited December 15, 2006 by NcSc74

[peaceloveunderstanding]

I consider ATL and Dallas as a economic tie...the souths 2nd city is Houston.

Houston is #1, Dallas, Miami, or Atlanta are #2. Houston has the most F500s outside of New York, has the busiest international port in the US. and is a center for energy and medicine.

Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami are the first tier cities in the South. There is no debate there.

The second tier is Charlotte, Tampa, Austin, Orlando, Nashville, New Orleans. Raleigh is about to get on the second tier. All of the cities on the second tier are a very long way from the first tier.

Edited December 15, 2006 by moonshield

[krazeeboi]

Houston is #1, Dallas, Miami, or Atlanta are #2. Houston has the most F500s outside of New York, has the busiest international port in the US. and is a center for energy and medicine.

Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami are the first tier cities in the South. There is no debate there.

The second tier is the Charlotte, Tampa, Austin, Orlando, Nashville, New Orleans. Raleigh is about to get on that the second tier. All of the cities on the second tier are a very long way from the first tier.

I agree 100%.

[Justiceham]

Houston is #1, Dallas, Miami, or Atlanta are #2. Houston has the most F500s outside of New York, has the busiest international port in the US. and is a center for energy and medicine.

Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami are the first tier cities in the South. There is no debate there.

The second tier is Charlotte, Tampa, Austin, Orlando, Nashville, New Orleans. Raleigh is about to get on the second tier. All of the cities on the second tier are a very long way from the first tier.

You hit it on the money. Atlanta may be the jewel of the South, but Houston is the first city. An economic catastrophe would have to happen in order for the 1st tier cities to be pushed out and the 2nd tier cities to be pushed in...for the time being. All of the 1st and 2nd tier cities are established, I would like to know more about cities outside of these.

[Rardy]

All of the 1st and 2nd tier cities are established, I would like to know more about cities outside of these.

I certainly agree on the 1st tier cities, but I disagree that the 2nd tier of Charlotte, Tampa, Austin, Orlando, Nashville, New Orleans is established.

That's far from being a complete list, and we'd need to have better criteria to accurately establish 2nd tier. If F500 presence is the criteria, both Nashville and New Orleans need to go to 3rd tier, and Richmond and Jacksonville need to replace them. If name recognition is the criteria, Austin and Charlotte need more thought before officially making them 2nd tier. I disagree that growth rates should be criteria (of the 6, only one notable exception is not growing quickly). Growth rates are violatile, all too often only reflect the tastes of the mass-produced, and on the national scale would eliminate the unarguably 1st tier cities like NYC, L.A., and Seattle.

No, IMO, 2nd tier is far from established.

[Justiceham]

I certainly agree on the 1st tier cities, but I disagree that the 2nd tier of Charlotte, Tampa, Austin, Orlando, Nashville, New Orleans is established.

That's far from being a complete list, and we'd need to have better criteria to accurately establish 2nd tier. If F500 presence is the criteria, both Nashville and New Orleans need to go to 3rd tier, and Richmond and Jacksonville need to replace them. If name recognition is the criteria, Austin and Charlotte need more thought before officially making them 2nd tier. I disagree that growth rates should be criteria (of the 6, only one notable exception is not growing quickly). Growth rates are violatile, all too often only reflect the tastes of the mass-produced, and on the national scale would eliminate the unarguably 1st tier cities like NYC, L.A., and Seattle.

No, IMO, 2nd tier is far from established.

Having fortune 500 companies alone does not make you established either. What I meant was that these cities have been on the national radar for quite some time, even Austin and Charlotte as you've mentioned. They have growing diversity, job growth, culture, and are full of young professionals. They may not have the fortune 500 companies but things like that change over time. And Anybody who's anyone knows about New Orleans, even before Hurricane Katrina, so no I will have to disagree with you there. The quality of its downtown, cultural offerings, history, and shear beauty makes it what it is today. I do agree, however, that you may not base population growth as being established. Like you've stated with population comes mass production and with that, I add accomadation rather than creativity and uniqueness. The list of 1st and 2nd tier cities are really not important to me despite the fact that the list mentioned previously is not complete.

Edited December 15, 2006 by Justiceham

[krazeeboi]

In my opinion, the 2nd tier of Southern cities consists of Austin, Birmingham, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Louisville, Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans, Norfolk, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Richmond, Tampa, and San Antonio. Raleigh and Tulsa are on the verge of being included in this group.

[Rardy]

In my opinion, the 2nd tier of Southern cities consists of Austin, Birmingham, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Louisville, Memphis, Nashville, New Orleans, Norfolk, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Richmond, Tampa, and San Antonio. Raleigh and Tulsa are on the verge of being included in this group.

So every city with more than 1,000,000 in metro? That's a clean, even way to measure it...

[krazeeboi]

^The primary central cities of metro areas with roughly 1M-3M in the MSA. Another way to categorize this group would be by urbanized area populations, but that gets a bit tricky since they range from 663K at the smallest (Birmingham) to 2M at the largest (Tampa-St. Petersburg).

[davidals]

I agree with a few of the previous posts - and I'd go along with them in emphasizing that it isn't JUST about population #s, skylines, interstates, etc.

The extreme example would be Geneva - a global city with a city population of about 180,000-190,000, in a metro of about 800,000. A very critical part of becoming a 1st tier city - nationally or internationally prominent - is recognized uniqueness and recognized indepensability. So just because a metro has 1,000,000 people, that automatically doesn't make it anything special, and just because a city is small-ish it isn't automatically out of the running. And cultural importance and achievements and atmosphere are all very important pieces of the puzzle - being large but generic isn't worth all that much in the long run.

[cheeriokid61]

Where'd that tiers thread go?

[krazeeboi]

Good point davidals--but does the South really have any cities that would qualify in that regard? For the most part, in the South, the numbers do correlate with importance of some sort. Also, this might go back to the qualifications for the tiering system itself. I just think that in the South, population is the easiest way to do it.

[davidals]

^

Probably not at the present, so your points are well taken. I would just argue that - though that's the way it is now, it's not necessarily the way it has to be in the future. To pull off such a thing - have a city that is small-to-medium in size become nationally (or internationally even) significant in spite of the lack of certain more obvious things (skylines, freeways, huge city or metro populations) - does demand multiple generations of fairly visionary leadership, which would also engage the population already in place and have an ability to trumpet those accomplishments nationally or beyond. This is why I keep zeroing in on little regional cities that have plenty of issues and things stacked against them, but also some big and obvious virtues that no one else has and can be built upon. All around, what I'm talking about is extremely difficult, and there's no real road map to it, but - over a long stretch of time - I don't think it's an impossible thing to contemplate either.

Looking at the debate over the Southern city of primary importance, I'd comment on a few: Miami, Nashville, New Orleans, Memphis. Those cities may not be the largest, and may not have the F500 clout of some others, but their significance at other levels is pretty unparallelled: they occupy one-of-a-kind, visible, public historic and cultural significance, and there are things coming from those places that you find nowhere else, and this is even true to an extent at least in places like especially NoLa which have been through a lot recently. So I'd just emphasize that along with the other, obvious factors - (skylines, freeways, research parks) - that the harder to measure things like jazz, civil rights, soul or country music, arts, writers, scenery, rivers, mountains, hippies, beach music, whatever are just as essential as a measure of importance or success: if you have it, and someone else doesn't, but wishes they did, then that's where a big piece of your future success lies. And by that token, Miami, Nashville, New Orleans, and Memphis' siblings, and perhaps equals, would be the smaller but no less unique Charleston SC or Asheville or Savannah.

[GvilleSC]

So every city with more than 1,000,000 in metro? That's a clean, even way to measure it...

So, can we add Greenville to the list?

[krazeeboi]

So, can we add Greenville to the list?

I think all of the cities I listed have over 1M in the MSA, not accounting for the CSA. Even then, it can get tricky when trying to classify the principal cities of multinodal metro areas. For instance, although Dallas and Fort Worth are in the same metro, Dallas is clearly in another league than Fort Worth. Even though in this case, Greenville is the primary city of a ~1.2M metro (CSA), as a city it is not yet in the league of Jacksonville or Birmingham (which have about the same amount in their MSAs).

[GvilleSC]

I think all of the cities I listed have over 1M in the MSA, not accounting for the CSA. Even then, it can get tricky when trying to classify the principal cities of multinodal metro areas. For instance, although Dallas and Fort Worth are in the same metro, Dallas is clearly in another league than Fort Worth. Even though in this case, Greenville is the primary city of a ~1.2M metro (CSA), as a city it is not yet in the league of Jacksonville or Birmingham (which have about the same amount in their MSAs).

Exactly. So, the rule isn't quite as cut and dry as one might think. (and the MSA will be combined again by 2010 based on development patterns I see).

[krazeeboi]

For the most part, I think so. I think it's pretty easy to see, by looking at other indicators, that Greenville is more on par with Greensboro, Columbia, Augusta, Little Rock, etc. and not quite at the level of Richmond, Nashville, Austin, Louisville, etc. Even if the Upstate becomes one MSA by the next census this will still hold true; other indicators will just have to be given more weight.

[PeninsulaKiddo]

Ladies and gents... I think a little attention should be shifted to Virginia Beach. Go look on their page --- BIG new announcement today that will allegedly elevate the profile of the city remarkably, and even, internationally.

[TBurban]

Yeah, thats pretty effin' crazy.

Ladies and gents... I think a little attention should be shifted to Virginia Beach. Go look on their page --- BIG new announcement today that will allegedly elevate the profile of the city remarkably, and even, internationally.

Im sure they wont mind.....

[krazeeboi]

Ladies and gents... I think a little attention should be shifted to Virginia Beach. Go look on their page --- BIG new announcement today that will allegedly elevate the profile of the city remarkably, and even, internationally.

It just sounds like the project will remake Va. Beach into an oversized Myrtle Beach (with a little bit of Vegas thrown in) to me. But I wish the city luck.