If our four largest were gone...

[vdogg]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[Lady Celeste]

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:

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.

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:

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]

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]

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.

[kayman]

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.

I get what you are saying Cody. I meant Birmingham will overshadow them once it overcomes its stagnant attitude and environment. Birmingham has always had that advantage over the other inland Southern cities due to the railroad infustructure and now its interstate hub status (plus those other factors I mentioned above). It is the antiprogressive attitude and suburban apathy that has been holding it back for the last 3 decades. Governor Riley, Larry Langford, Shelia Smoot, and more progressive politicians like them on a local level will propel Birmingham forward. In addition to that a more active business community (Birmingham is headquarters to many major national and international corporations) that is willing to step up and promote revitalization and community pride. IMO, this revitalization of Birmingham has started with the condos DT and a new superintendent for B'ham City Schools, but we won't see the results of these initial changes happening right now for another decade or 2 at least.

Oh yeah, on the media thing. There is not much we can do about those pessimists besides stop watching their BS stories. Most cities around the country suffer from these same problems from their respective media outlets (primarily TV). Since you don't see The Birmingham News being so negative, but instead reports both sides of the spectrum of stories. Also The Birmingham News, unlike the televised media, also reports about the corruption in state politics something that televised media won't touch b/c their don't want to loose the revenue from their political televised ads come campaign time.

[satalac]

i'm gonna go with austin, charlotte, jacksonville and nashville.

[Brent]

NOVA is very much VA. Saying that it isn't is like saying Atlanta isn't GA. The houses are very VA looking, as are the shopping centers, schools, courthouses, streetscapes, landscaping etc... Streets, subdivisions, towns, public buildings, shopping malls are named after VA people or places. I've lived there. Its inhabitants are proud Virginians, its residents no more diverse than those of Hampton Roads or Richmond. There is more to NOVA than the I95 corridor. There are colonial plantations, battle fields, sail and fishing boats, cobblestone streets, row houses, saltwater marshes, blue crabs and horse farms galore. VA threw and threw.

The prosperous DC that we know today exists because of the economic powerhouse neighbor to its south. DC has a greater debt to VA than the other way around (a pretty hefty debt to MD too).

As for the land issue, only Arlington County was a part of the district (Roslyn, Arlington Courthouse are the towns). Bialys Crossroads, Ballston, Tyson

[Jerseyman4]

All of Virginia feels/looks like Virginia when your along the state highway system. Soon as you get into some independant cities where its city-maintained, sometimes you dont think your in Virginia anymore.

[Cadeho]

If I can recall, due to the Civil War, Richmond was the second largest city in the South during the height of the war. It was only behind New Orleans. Even if the Confederates had won and Richmond not kept the title of capital, it would probably still be a major city in the CSA.

However, I would back Norfolk (or a city combining the EIGHT... yes I said EIGHT cities, not seven) could be a powerhouse. I wouldn't argue for Northern Virginia because each of those cities are small. The counties have huge populations though. I think they'd be harder to consolidate than Hampton Roads.

Charlotte came out of nowhere (I had never even heard of it until 1993 when a friend moved there). They would be the Atlanta.

I'll just name cities for the other two... *picks a name out of a hat* Austin, Tx and... Baton Rouge... hmmm capitals.

[Cadeho]

NOVA is very much VA. Saying that it isn't is like saying Atlanta isn't GA. The houses are very VA looking, as are the shopping centers, schools, courthouses, streetscapes, landscaping etc... Streets, subdivisions, towns, public buildings, shopping malls are named after VA people or places. I've lived there. Its inhabitants are proud Virginians, its residents no more diverse than those of Hampton Roads or Richmond. There is more to NOVA than the I95 corridor. There are colonial plantations, battle fields, sail and fishing boats, cobblestone streets, row houses, saltwater marshes, blue crabs and horse farms galore. VA threw and threw.

The prosperous DC that we know today exists because of the economic powerhouse neighbor to its south. DC has a greater debt to VA than the other way around (a pretty hefty debt to MD too).

As for the land issue, only Arlington County was a part of the district (Roslyn, Arlington Courthouse are the towns). Bialys Crossroads, Ballston, Tyson

[krazeeboi]

If I can recall, due to the Civil War, Richmond was the second largest city in the South during the height of the war. It was only behind New Orleans. Even if the Confederates had won and Richmond not kept the title of capital, it would probably still be a major city in the CSA.

Actually, around the time the war started, Baltimore was by far the largest Southern city (and it was considered fully Southern at the time). After that would be New Orleans, Washington (also considered fully Southern at the time), Charleston, then Richmond. However, by 1870, Charleston had jumped ahead of Richmond by about 2,000.

[NCB]

Just to throw in the actual numbers:

Five largest Southern cities in 1860

Baltimore- 212,418

New Orleans- 168,675

Washington D.C.- 61,122

Charleston- 40,522

Richmond- 37,910

Five largest Confederate cities using 1860 census numbers

New Orleans- 168,675

Charleston- 40,522

Richmond- 37,910

Mobile- 29,258

Memphis- 22,623

[Cadeho]

Are Maryland and DC in this forum? From the source I read, it mentions specifically New Orleans and Richmond as 1 and 2. Charleston was bigger before Richmond became capital. And 1860 is a year before the war started.

[NCB]

Are Maryland and DC in this forum? From the source I read, it mentions specifically New Orleans and Richmond as 1 and 2. Charleston was bigger before Richmond became capital. And 1860 is a year before the war started.

You're right, Maryland and D.C. aren't in the Southern forum, but "officially" today they are both considered to be in the "South," and were in 1860 as well. Maryland and D.C. were and still are considered to be "Southern" but were not considered to be "Confederate." There is a very different meaning between those two terms, and that's why I used two different population charts. And because I couldn't find any population estimates for Confederate cities from 1861-65, I had to use the 1860 census numbers, and I thought those numbers might do a better job of showing the population's of the cities during that time than the 1870 numbers would.

[Cadeho]

I understand. Now this is my opinion, but Washington and Baltimore despite their slave pasts are more northern than southern. I can see some aspects in them, but they're stuck being part of the North even while being below the Mason-Dixon line. Now Maryland as a state would be southern compared to the other states above it. But I know a lot of people move the N/S line to the Potomac and I kind of go by that at times (although I still think of Va as the southernmost northeastern state). But I guess the book I was using was only considering populations during the war inside the new country itself.

[Brent]

Not to beat a dead horse but, Arlington was a part of Washington, DC. Alexandria has been a VA city since its founding. If one were to add Alexandria to the the district it'd be shaped more like New Jersey than a diamond.

I'm sure we Virginian's are casuing some eyes to roll with our splitting hairs and all.

As long as we're weighing in, I'll always consider DC and MD as southern.

[rocky top buzz]

First Question: What is an interstate hub and why does birmingham get that designation?

Birmingham lost to Atlanta because of the airport, and lost to the rest of the country because of their race relations. I've been to Birmingham many times, and it's a nice city, but it doesn't seem to have anything positive going for it that will encourage more growth. They need a pro sports team to help kick start growth. Without that, Alabama and Mississippi will be the south's bottom feeders. I don't know what MS needs.

And I don't think SC's lake of a boom has anything to do with the rebel flag. SC is beautiful and I don't know why more has not relocated there. I guess because Atlanta, Florida, Texas, and Tennessee have more connections to the rest of the country?

If any other city could replace Atlanta, it would most likely be Nashville simply due to their close proximity to Atlanta, and the current boom here. Of course, I live in Nashville and grew up in Atlanta, so I'm biased. Many of you say Charlotte, but I don't know enough about them. They are about the same distance from Atlanta as Nashville.

Texas is big, replace Houston with Dallas, with San Antonio, with New Orleans. Of course after Katrina, we should all be grateful that New Orleans wasn't larger than it is.

I think Tampa Bay would have to be considered the best replacement for Miami. I heard nothing but bad publicity about Jacksonville when they hosted the super bowl a few years back. I would put them more in line with a large Savannah.

[krazeeboi]

And I don't think SC's lake of a boom has anything to do with the rebel flag. SC is beautiful and I don't know why more has not relocated there. I guess because Atlanta, Florida, Texas, and Tennessee have more connections to the rest of the country?

It's because of unprogressive political leadership in years past that lacked foresight and vision.

[kayman]

First Question: What is an interstate hub and why does birmingham get that designation?

A interstate hub is a convergence of 3 or more interstate highways. Nashville, Louisville, and Atlanta are also interstate hubs as well, and Memphis is soon to be one as well.

I've been to Birmingham many times, and it's a nice city, but it doesn't seem to have anything positive going for it that will encourage more growth. They need a pro sports team to help kick start growth.

I would have to disagree with you on that. Birmingham just suffers from a lack of progressive leadership, a troubled past of racial relations, and a lack of major television and mass promotion from its CVB. Yeah, Birmingham leaders back in the 1960's did drop the ball with the Delta hub at BIA and racial relations, but at some point or another we have moved on and gotten over that. The lack positivity could be said the same any other southern city, but I not even going to go there. However, going of the notion that Birmingham is "not positive" is a little off base and just uninformed.

Although I am critical of Birmingham, it has a lot more going for it than a lot of other Southern cities don't. Its biggest assets are UAB which is the South's top medical center, a rapidly growing biotech sector, and it being a major financial center home to still 3 major financial institutions and numerous up-and-coming homegrown banks. Birmingham also has a higher office occupacity (87% as of 2005) and density in its CBD than most other Southern cities CBD including Nashville. I would have disagree with the pro sports team notion also. Most of the time pro sports teams will give a city or region national exposure, but usually it still doesn't give a city that "kick start" in growth or tourism. Usually, major sports events like Olympics (i.e. Atlanta) or hosting more than 1 Super Bowl or NBA All-Star Game (New Orleans and Miami) will give a city that type of pro sports exposure and later growth. However, Birmingham will get at least 1 pro sports team in the next 2 decades.

Birmingham is growing, and its metro area did grow 10% in the past decade. Just because it doesn't have the rate of growth (which is mostly sprawl) as other Southern cities are experiencing doesn't mean it isn't rapidly growing. I have come to realize that I would rather watch Birmingham develop and grow wisely and gain status in due time rather than force it like many Southern cities are doing nowadays. Some of this forced attention and growth always has a downside whether you believe it or not.

In all, IMO the South's Big 4 if Atlanta, Miami, Houston, or Dallas disappeared would be:

Charlotte

Nashville

New Orleans

Birmingham