Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 15,004,545 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
In terms of planning, both Charlotte and Atlanta are very suburban and planned for the most part after 1970 (when the boom really started hitting Atlanta, perhaps 1990 for Charlotte).
Stop right there. The city of Atlanta was not "for the most part" built after 1970. Most neighborhoods in the city were built prior to the 1950s and there was very little building going on the city in terms of residential post 1970 as that is the year the city's population started to go into decline. The city only began to add residents at the tail end of the 1990s. Don't bring up any of the suburban counties. They looks exactly what you should expect suburbs look like: suburbs.
and take a look at just how neighborhoods in the city of Atlanta have been around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
If you look at maps of both cities, you will find dendritic street patterns. Planners have long argued that due to the topography, street grids are impractical. When Atlanta actually was building street grids and streetcar lines, the area was so fiercely divided into different municipalities that the grids were not well connected and actually went in all different directions. In any case, I have seen enough cities with more hills and a yet still containing a well maintained grid street pattern. San Francisco is an example, Seattle, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, list goes on. Yea they are older, but the point is that Atl and Charlotte are both so poorly planned and built up in the time of gated subdivisions and cul de sacs that it will be impossible to return to a plan that is more conducive to public transportation and mixed use projects.
Grids to me are overated. Plenty of cities (actually most cities in the united states) and they do little to nothing to improve their urban form. Also, Pittsburgh is just as bad as Atlanta, if not worse, when it comes their disjointed street grid.
Stop right there. The city of Atlanta was not "for the most part" built after 1970. Most neighborhoods in the city were built prior to the 1950s and there was very little building going on the city in terms of residential post 1970 as that is the year the city's population started to go into decline. The city only began to add residents at the tail end of the 1990s. Don't bring up any of the suburban counties. They looks exactly what you should expect suburbs look like: suburbs.
and take a look at just how neighborhoods in the city of Atlanta have been around.
Are we comparing just cities here or metros? If just cities, then obviously you are correct, but I am referring to the metros (I rarely just compare "cities" as some cities are 40 square miles and some cities are 600 square miles or more). Atlanta only has around 10-12% of its MSA population within the city limits. Charlotte has around 40-45% of its MSA population within its city limits because its boundaries encompass more land and Charlotte hasn't grown nearly as big as Atlanta...yet. It's planning is similar and it will eventually be just as sprawled out. Sorry for making it confusing to tell if I was referring to city or MSA.
City wise, Charlotte is still pretty new. Charlotte and Raleigh city limits are both very new compared to Atlanta, Nashville, Birmingham, Jacksonville, NOLA obviously, Richmond, etc.
And yea I'll take Pitt back on the grid comment, but it is tried and true that a grid pattern of streets is highly conducive to mixed income, mixed use developments, promotion of urban transit systems, better traffic flow, less confusion, and more sustainable development and growth patterns. It's next to impossible to disprove that. I am taking two city planning classes that discuss just this very thing with research in your face to back it up daily. It's enough to convert a happy suburbanite into an anti-suburbanite LoL.
In terms of planning, both Charlotte and Atlanta are very suburban and planned for the most part after 1970 (when the boom really started hitting Atlanta, perhaps 1990 for Charlotte). If you look at maps of both cities, you will find dendritic street patterns. Planners have long argued that due to the topography, street grids are impractical. When Atlanta actually was building street grids and streetcar lines, the area was so fiercely divided into different municipalities that the grids were not well connected and actually went in all different directions. In any case, I have seen enough cities with more hills and a yet still containing a well maintained grid street pattern. San Francisco is an example, Seattle, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, list goes on. Yea they are older, but the point is that Atl and Charlotte are both so poorly planned and built up in the time of gated subdivisions and cul de sacs that it will be impossible to return to a plan that is more conducive to public transportation and mixed use projects.
Charlotte's Uptown area is the only real urban area with enormous potential for 24 hour city status, while Atlanta has a larger in town area that can produce that kind of environment, as well as a chunk of Buckhead about the same size as Uptown Charlotte (I think Buckhead and Uptown Charlotte will very closely resemble each other in scope, layout, and aesthetics in a matter of 5-10 years). Uptown Charlotte will never be able to compete with downtown Atlanta (maybe Midtown) because it is lacking that old city plan and old city buildings. When Atlanta can figure out how best to rebuild up downtown, it will probably once again be the premiere office and entertainment district in Atlanta (which happens to also mean the South by default).
From an Atlanta perspective, there is nothing in Charlotte that makes me jealous. We have everything Charlotte has and more (from a Winston Cup track to a major theme park, etc). From my hometown perspective (Jacksonville), Charlotte is like a great professor. I truly think that Jax has so much more potential (location, climate, grid pattern, as much old stuff to work with as Atlanta, wealthy northern retirees and OLD money to help with philanthropy, etc), but Charlotte right now is doing everything right for what it has to work with. Charlotte's leadership is nearly unmatched, especially in the South. Charlotte also has a great economy going for it (though for its apparent lack of diversity, I am shocked at how strong the Charlotte economy is still going). Charlotte is also stealing top talent from Florida and New York at least as much as Atlanta is, if not more. Bottom line is: Charlotte leaders know how to finagle state and federal politicians, and they know how to appeal to local businessmen to settle deals and implement projects. Jacksonville has no friends in Tallahassee (like it used to) and no friends in Washington. The current City Council is comprised of uneducated bigots who squabble about what prayer to say before a meeting, and so obviously as a result, NOTHING gets done.
Sorry for being slightly off topic, but I think Charlotte is developing like Atlanta has (suburban wise that's unfortunate), but because of it population and economic size wise, it is much more comparable to metros in the 1.5-2.5 million person range (Atlanta is approaching 6 million people).
To all of you posters from Charlotte that are looking for a feel good moment, do not compare yourselves or ask opinions of people from metros much larger and generally much more progressive than yours (i.e. Atlanta). I am not saying to go hijack any other cities' boards, but you might want to ask Indianapolis, Austin, Nashville, Cincinnati, Orlando, Tampa, Providence, Jacksonville, Raleigh (really would ask them, I think Charlotte blows Raleigh out of the water in every category except for the meds, the feds, and the eds), and other more similarly sized metros that are having difficulty competing with Charlotte in growth, GDP, amenities, etc. That way your chances for a feel good moment are much higher. FWIW, I think Orlando's growing faster (could be wrong, though), but half of Orlando is moving half way back up to Charlotte and loving it up there, so I doubt you'll get too many negative responses from them.
Why do I keep posting in this thread?
And to Poseidon704, I know Myers Park is very nice, but it is so different from Buckhead or any of Atlanta's old wealthy communities. Most houses I have seen in Myers Park seemed pretty new to me. Was it even a streetcar suburb? Your 4th Ward might be pretty similar to Atlanta's 4th Ward, but the similarities stop there.
Wow. Perhaps 20% of this post is spot-on.
As for the rest, you are hardly qualified to make such huge, sweeping, generalized statements of things you obviously know very little of.
I would suggest that you put that Tech education to work for you a little harder. Seek out Catherine Ross and ask for some help sorting things out. It will pay huge dividends once you get out in the real world.
It is apparently natural from the Charlotte perspective. From the Atlanta perspective, it would be like Charlotte viewing Columbia as their rival.
Nobody is claiming that Charlotte is Atlanta's "rival", but since you mentioned Columbia, they actually do look to Charlotte in terms of measuring certain aspects of their progress (and Charlotte wishes it had its university downtown and a great zoo like Columbia). Again, the comparisons are natural for cities within relatively close proximity of each other.
And to Poseidon704, I know Myers Park is very nice, but it is so different from Buckhead or any of Atlanta's old wealthy communities. Most houses I have seen in Myers Park seemed pretty new to me. Was it even a streetcar suburb? Your 4th Ward might be pretty similar to Atlanta's 4th Ward, but the similarities stop there.
Yes, Myers Park was a streetcar suburb; the neighborhood is just over a century old. There's new construction, as any healthy neighborhood has, but there's a pretty large stock of historic houses as well. It's not as extravagant as Buckhead, but it's still a stately historic neighborhood. It was the home of many of the textile, banking, and utility leaders that turned the Carolina Piedmont into a major American manufacturing region in the early twentieth century.
It appears as though Atlanta's counterpart to our Fourth Ward would not be its namesake, but rather Grant Park. Fourth Ward here is known for its historic Victorian homes, and it looks like there are many of those in Grant Park. A cursory Google search of Grant Park turned up images like these:
And this is what the historic homes in Fourth Ward here in Charlotte look like:
Both neighborhoods also have historic cemeteries that were established in the 1850's and are the resting places for Confederate soldiers: Oakland in Grant Park and Elmwood in Charlotte.
Last edited by Poseidon704; 09-21-2010 at 02:43 AM..
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 15,004,545 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
Are we comparing just cities here or metros? If just cities, then obviously you are correct, but I am referring to the metros (I rarely just compare "cities" as some cities are 40 square miles and some cities are 600 square miles or more).
Well the comments you made lent me to believe that you were in fact speaking about the city of Atlanta since you specifically brought up planning and street grids. Atlanta is no different than any other big city in that it has miles upon miles of sprawling suburbs around it. The worst part is that Atlanta itself has no say in how that happens. No city get's to plan it's suburbs, with the exception of cities with several hundred square mile borders. It seems sometimes as if Atlanta is the only city with such a problem. Just look at NoVa, Western Chicago, and the burbs around any other very large city and you will see the same tangled mess of strip malls and subdivisions as you do in the suburbs of Atlanta.
It also bothers me that, especially on C-D, when people say "Atlanta is suburban" what they really meant to say is "Atlanta has a lot of suburbs". Which is true. Because of the archaic county setup and the small number of incorporated places, Metro Atlanta has had a difficult time coordinating even the simplest measures for traffic or services. In recent years though it seems as if we're making some progress. A lot more could be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
Atlanta only has around 10-12% of its MSA population within the city limits. Charlotte has around 40-45% of its MSA population within its city limits because its boundaries encompass more land and Charlotte hasn't grown nearly as big as Atlanta...yet. It's planning is similar and it will eventually be just as sprawled out. Sorry for making it confusing to tell if I was referring to city or MSA.
This is the sort of thing that causes confusion. You say you are speaking about the metro and yet you go back to talking about things that only relate to the city propers.
Yes, it is true that about 12% of the Metro Atlanta population lives in the city proper. This is not a unique occurrence. Miami, Boston, DC, Minneapolis, San Francisco all have a similar percentages living in their central city. In fact, almost every city has the majority of their metro population living in the suburbs including Chicago, Philly, NYC, and LA.
So it's an odd statement to make given that most cities are just like Atlanta, and usually the only cities that do not have the majority of their population living in their suburbs are ones with huge physical sizes such as Charlotte, Jacksonville, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
City wise, Charlotte is still pretty new. Charlotte and Raleigh city limits are both very new compared to Atlanta, Nashville, Birmingham, Jacksonville, NOLA obviously, Richmond, etc.
Thats true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsimms3
And yea I'll take Pitt back on the grid comment, but it is tried and true that a grid pattern of streets is highly conducive to mixed income, mixed use developments, promotion of urban transit systems, better traffic flow, less confusion, and more sustainable development and growth patterns. It's next to impossible to disprove that. I am taking two city planning classes that discuss just this very thing with research in your face to back it up daily. It's enough to convert a happy suburbanite into an anti-suburbanite LoL.
Like I said, city grids are overrated....especially when it comes to doing all the magical things you just ascribed to them. For instance, the following cities have massive street grids:
Los Angeles
Houston
Dallas
Phoenix
Orlando
Oklahoma City
Compare that with the following do not have a street grid:
Boston
London
Rome
Now which group of cities has been able to create "mixed income, mixed use developments, promotion of urban transit systems, better traffic flow, less confusion, and more sustainable development and growth patterns"? Obviously, the street grid is not the reason for the above. Otherwise Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Orlando, Oklahoma City, and whole host of other cities would be these urban paradises imbued by their street grid's superior nature.
Street grids are a good way to divided up land and make it easier to drive in some city's, but all of this mess about it making a city more ______ is nonsense. Especially considering there are really only three big cities in the country (Boston, Atlanta, Pittsburgh) that do not have them, and they do a good job at mixed up and transit oriented neighborhoods. Yes, I place Atlanta in that group. We aren't up to the level of places like Boston yet, but we are certainly not as bad as others make us out to be. Especially when the discuss the topic and decide to bring up the suburbs instead of the city proper.
It is also kind of a red herring argument to bring up. Just exactly how are cities like Boston or Atlanta supposed to get a street grid without leveling the city and starting from scratch? Boston already tried to remedy it's horrible street layout with the Big Dig...we already know how much that helped.
As for the rest, you are hardly qualified to make such huge, sweeping, generalized statements of things you obviously know very little of.
I would suggest that you put that Tech education to work for you a little harder. Seek out Catherine Ross and ask for some help sorting things out. It will pay huge dividends once you get out in the real world.
I have met Catherine Ross and have her book MegaRegions. I saw her just last week at a ULI event. I am a finance major, not city planning, but I happen to be interested in city planning which is why I am taking 4 classes in the CP program. My posts are not trying to go into exact details here, but anyone who has travelled or lived anywhere else knows that Atlanta and Charlotte city layouts are similar and dendritic. I love Atl, and I live here, and I have praised Atl numerous times, so the only criticism I have directed at the city is its street layout and planning, and you seem to have a problem with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon704
Yes, Myers Park was a streetcar suburb; the neighborhood is just over a century old. There's new construction, as any healthy neighborhood has, but there's a pretty large stock of historic houses as well. It's not as extravagant as Buckhead, but it's still a stately historic neighborhood. It was the home of many of the textile, banking, and utility leaders that turned the Carolina Piedmont into a major American manufacturing region in the early twentieth century. Ok you and I are actually agreeing. I'm just saying that while there are old houses, I noticed at least as much new construction. I stand corrected that it was a streetcar suburb...I think I actually asked if it was.
It appears as though Atlanta's counterpart to our Fourth Ward would not be its namesake, but rather Grant Park. Fourth Ward here is known for its historic Victorian homes, and it looks like there are many of those in Grant Park.
I stand corrected here, but I went to Charlotte to get some photos, and I could not find so much in the way of "old". I'm not trying to knock it, but 99% of the country does not think of Charlotte as "old" because it's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas
It also bothers me that, especially on C-D, when people say "Atlanta is suburban" what they really meant to say is "Atlanta has a lot of suburbs". Which is true. Because of the archaic county setup and the small number of incorporated places, Metro Atlanta has had a difficult time coordinating even the simplest measures for traffic or services. In recent years though it seems as if we're making some progress. A lot more could be done.
Agreed that we are making some serious progress, but Atlanta is more than "has a bunch of suburbs." Atlanta is very suburban. Please see my post on the "City that's built up near Roswell" thread where I have posted aerials of the area, including ITP areas. Atlanta, for a metro its size sprawls to high heaven more than just about any other metro.
This is the sort of thing that causes confusion. You say you are speaking about the metro and yet you go back to talking about things that only relate to the city propers.
I apologized for the confusion, I am just used to having conversations like this with people that are used to differentiating metros and city limits and can tell when one is referring to one or the other.
Yes, it is true that about 12% of the Metro Atlanta population lives in the city proper. This is not a unique occurrence. Miami, Boston, DC, Minneapolis, San Francisco all have a similar percentages living in their central city. In fact, almost every city has the majority of their metro population living in the suburbs including Chicago, Philly, NYC, and LA.
Yes, that's my point. It's usually mute to compare "cities" when the vast majority of a city (MSA) is its suburbs. Therefore the whole thing must be taken into context. Besides, most of the examples you just gave are far smaller in land area than Atl city limits. Miami is around 35 sq. mi. and SF is around 49 sq. mi. DC and Boston, equally small, I don't know Minneapolis off the top of my head.
So it's an odd statement to make given that most cities are just like Atlanta, and usually the only cities that do not have the majority of their population living in their suburbs are ones with huge physical sizes such as Charlotte, Jacksonville, etc.
Thats true.
Like I said, city grids are overrated....especially when it comes to doing all the magical things you just ascribed to them. For instance, the following cities have massive street grids:
Los Angeles LA is actually very walkable
Houston Working in their favor as we speak, in Loop Houston is great!
Dallas
Phoenix making it easier for infill and their new light rail system, very low density, though
Orlando major stretch
Oklahoma City will make it easy for OK City in the future should it undergo massive growth
Compare that with the following do not have a street grid:
Boston As much of a grid as Dallas mentioned above. Back Bay = grid, Roxbury = grid
London
Rome
Now which group of cities has been able to create "mixed income, mixed use developments, promotion of urban transit systems, better traffic flow, less confusion, and more sustainable development and growth patterns"? Obviously, the street grid is not the reason for the above. Otherwise Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Orlando, Oklahoma City, and whole host of other cities would be these urban paradises imbued by their street grid's superior nature.
I think you are missing my point. The 3 "non-grid" cities you provided were built up to basically max density before the car was even a thought. In the age of the automobile, as you point out below, a grid makes traffic and driving much easier.
Street grids are a good way to divided up land and make it easier to drive in some city's, but all of this mess about it making a city more ______ is nonsense. Especially considering there are really only three big cities in the country (Boston, Atlanta, Pittsburgh) that do not have them, and they do a good job at mixed up and transit oriented neighborhoods. Yes, I place Atlanta in that group. We aren't up to the level of places like Boston yet, but we are certainly not as bad as others make us out to be. Especially when the discuss the topic and decide to bring up the suburbs instead of the city proper.
It is also kind of a red herring argument to bring up. Just exactly how are cities like Boston or Atlanta supposed to get a street grid without leveling the city and starting from scratch? Boston already tried to remedy it's horrible street layout with the Big Dig...we already know how much that helped.
Response to above 2 paragraphs: I urge you to look at zoning for Atlanta and land use. We'll never be able to get a grid. I have actually said that on this forum a few times. I have pointed out that we should look to NoVA and Montgomery County, MD on how to plan for concentrated growth and transportation oriented developments. If Atlanta did not have a grid and planned for higher density development in the first place, then we could be compared to Pittsburgh, European cities, etc. Atlanta ditched the grid and allowed for over development of subdivisions, gated housing neighborhoods, and low density garden style apartments. Each of these have land separating them from the next development. The current layout allows for very few areas to become walkable like neighborhoods in the other cities that you mentioned simply because of land use and dendritic street patterns consuming 90+% of the metro.
And might I add, intown Pittsburgh may not be grid, but it is certainly not dendritic with dead ends. All steets connect and city blocks are not a quarter of a square mile or larger in size.
The bottom line is that you are all up in arms over me declaring Atlanta's planning and street pattern to be non-conducive to mixed use and mixed income, but I mentioned the same for Charlotte and even relegated less of their city able to be developed in such a fashion. I have pointed out my pros and cons of each and questioned why Charlotte (and Dallas) posters continue to start threads here in the Atl forum, and yet all of a sudden Atl posters are up in arms over harmless me. Ok. For the record, I doubt Catherine Ross is and I know Ellen Dunham Jones is not proud of Atlanta's planning, though I know both love the city overall. That's how I am. Get used to it and get over it. As I have said a million times, at least we had a ton of history to begin with and we did not raze it all, like Charlotte has.
In terms of planning, both Charlotte and Atlanta are very suburban and planned for the most part after 1970 (when the boom really started hitting Atlanta, perhaps 1990 for Charlotte). If you look at maps of both cities, you will find dendritic street patterns. Planners have long argued that due to the topography, street grids are impractical. When Atlanta actually was building street grids and streetcar lines, the area was so fiercely divided into different municipalities that the grids were not well connected and actually went in all different directions. In any case, I have seen enough cities with more hills and a yet still containing a well maintained grid street pattern. San Francisco is an example, Seattle, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, list goes on. Yea they are older, but the point is that Atl and Charlotte are both so poorly planned and built up in the time of gated subdivisions and cul de sacs that it will be impossible to return to a plan that is more conducive to public transportation and mixed use projects.
Charlotte's Uptown area is the only real urban area with enormous potential for 24 hour city status, while Atlanta has a larger in town area that can produce that kind of environment, as well as a chunk of Buckhead about the same size as Uptown Charlotte (I think Buckhead and Uptown Charlotte will very closely resemble each other in scope, layout, and aesthetics in a matter of 5-10 years). Uptown Charlotte will never be able to compete with downtown Atlanta (maybe Midtown) because it is lacking that old city plan and old city buildings. When Atlanta can figure out how best to rebuild up downtown, it will probably once again be the premiere office and entertainment district in Atlanta (which happens to also mean the South by default).
From an Atlanta perspective, there is nothing in Charlotte that makes me jealous. We have everything Charlotte has and more (from a Winston Cup track to a major theme park, etc). From my hometown perspective (Jacksonville), Charlotte is like a great professor. I truly think that Jax has so much more potential (location, climate, grid pattern, as much old stuff to work with as Atlanta, wealthy northern retirees and OLD money to help with philanthropy, etc), but Charlotte right now is doing everything right for what it has to work with. Charlotte's leadership is nearly unmatched, especially in the South. Charlotte also has a great economy going for it (though for its apparent lack of diversity, I am shocked at how strong the Charlotte economy is still going). Charlotte is also stealing top talent from Florida and New York at least as much as Atlanta is, if not more. Bottom line is: Charlotte leaders know how to finagle state and federal politicians, and they know how to appeal to local businessmen to settle deals and implement projects. Jacksonville has no friends in Tallahassee (like it used to) and no friends in Washington. The current City Council is comprised of uneducated bigots who squabble about what prayer to say before a meeting, and so obviously as a result, NOTHING gets done.
Sorry for being slightly off topic, but I think Charlotte is developing like Atlanta has (suburban wise that's unfortunate), but because of it population and economic size wise, it is much more comparable to metros in the 1.5-2.5 million person range (Atlanta is approaching 6 million people).
To all of you posters from Charlotte that are looking for a feel good moment, do not compare yourselves or ask opinions of people from metros much larger and generally much more progressive than yours (i.e. Atlanta). I am not saying to go hijack any other cities' boards, but you might want to ask Indianapolis, Austin, Nashville, Cincinnati, Orlando, Tampa, Providence, Jacksonville, Raleigh (really would ask them, I think Charlotte blows Raleigh out of the water in every category except for the meds, the feds, and the eds), and other more similarly sized metros that are having difficulty competing with Charlotte in growth, GDP, amenities, etc. That way your chances for a feel good moment are much higher. FWIW, I think Orlando's growing faster (could be wrong, though), but half of Orlando is moving half way back up to Charlotte and loving it up there, so I doubt you'll get too many negative responses from them.
Why do I keep posting in this thread?
And to Poseidon704, I know Myers Park is very nice, but it is so different from Buckhead or any of Atlanta's old wealthy communities. Most houses I have seen in Myers Park seemed pretty new to me. Was it even a streetcar suburb? Your 4th Ward might be pretty similar to Atlanta's 4th Ward, but the similarities stop there.
First and foremost Charlottes city limits are not as extreme as some posters are making it out to be:
Jacksonville: 800 sq miles
Nashville: 400 sqmiles Charlotte; 242 sqmiles(land)
Oklahoma City 400 sq miles
etc....
Secondly, Thank you for clearing up the fact that Charlotte and Raleigh are not even close to being in the same tier. Just because they have similar metro populations does not mean the actual cities themselves are on the same level. trust me, they are not even close. Charlotte is in the situation where its actual city limits are very progressive(not neccesarily urban), citi-esque, modern,etc... but its suburbs are definitely "country." The situation is that Charlotte is way ahead of the rest of its peers that are supposedly in its tier that you almost have to place Charlotte(maybe Austin) into a tier by itself. A step up above the clevelands, nashvilles, but not yet up there with the top ten(yes Atlanta is on that list). You have to remember that 65% of Charlottes metro population resides in the county(520sqmiles). A natural comparison is to "look-up" to the cities that are ahead of you when you are no longer in the same playing field as the other cities that are supposed to be inthe same tier.
FYI, I have much respect and love for Nashville, Jacksonvile,Louisville,Oklahoma City, Cleveland, Raleigh, Cincinnatti, Orlando, Providence and Tampa,
Charlotte may lead in it's tier but at the end of the day those cities are in the same tier. No matter how u word it...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
