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.
Charleston has long arrived as a city and Greenville is already seen as up and coming these days, so why mention them? Columbia definitely has the ingredients to be an up and coming city in the near future.
Why not mention them? I don't believe that being an already established city automatically disqualifies a city from being an up and coming city (see Detroit).
You're certainly right about that. Even Boston and LA have been mentioned which I think is ridiculous.
I agree that Boston is ridiculous. LA's urban areas are definitely "up and coming", particularly neighborhoods that haven't gotten attention or investment in decades. LA as a whole...I agree it doesn't make since.
Quote:
That's fair, but that would mean Charleston is currently an up and coming city. Columbia would be an appropriate candidate for the next round of up and coming cities.
I literally said this about 3 posts ago. It's why Columbia was brought up...
New Orleans is almost half populated by uneducated welfare taking dysfunctionals and criminals plus its part of Louisiana and one of the most corrupt areas in the country. State government operates on a spoils system more now than it has in the past 20 years. New Orleans is a crony capitalist haven, they will always force the little guy to subsidize the big guy's projects. On top of that, there's always the threat of big hurricanes. If it weren't for a huge federal government bailout and government subsidized insurance, they wouldn't have rebuilt in the same way. Basically New Orleans is one libertarian president away from being a 3rd world country.
There's some big projects slated to happen soon, plenty of charm and vibe to New Orleans (great Urban core/infrastructure) but it'll never be the next Austin.
This is an old post, and I'm a pretty big Austin guy, but NO is at a level that Austin may never attain, nationally.
Why not mention them? I don't believe that being an already established city automatically disqualifies a city from being an up and coming city (see Detroit).
I said nothing about being an "already established city;" I said that it makes no sense to mention cities that have already arrived at a place of prominence (and are obviously still doing well for themselves) or those that are already deemed to be up and coming right now. This thread is about the NEXT up and coming cities...key word being "next." Detroit is already rebounding but if you want to talk about cities that have fallen from grace that could be next in line to be up and coming once again, then Baltimore or Camden would be appropriate examples. For a small/midsized city that never had such a fall and is simply waiting to hit its stride, Columbia is a good example.
I agree that Boston is ridiculous. LA's urban areas are definitely "up and coming", particularly neighborhoods that haven't gotten attention or investment in decades. LA as a whole...I agree it doesn't make since.
I literally said this about 3 posts ago. It's why Columbia was brought up...
This article might give a bit more insight into what’s going on in Grand Rapids development wise. It doesn’t include several big projects that are wrapping up soon.
I use to live in Muskegon about 30 minutes away from GR and I've always been so surprised at how underrated it is nationally. So many people I talk to have never even heard of it. It's one heck of a city and feels larger then it is. One of the few places left in MI that is really killing it. If I ever moved back to my home state that is where I would be.
^ It's an odd dynamic but that's how I am too. If it doesn't have a big-three team, I subconsciously think of it as insignificant. Then I'm surprised at how big it is. Many cities are in that category. Rochester? Norfolk or whatever you call that area? Columbus? A few are exceptions...Honolulu, Austin, Vegas....
^ It's an odd dynamic but that's how I am too. If it doesn't have a big-three team, I subconsciously think of it as insignificant. Then I'm surprised at how big it is. Many cities are in that category. Rochester? Norfolk or whatever you call that area? Columbus? A few are exceptions...Honolulu, Austin, Vegas....
The area is called Hampton Roads.
There are other differentiators than just sports. I grew up in Akron and I never paid to see the teams in Cleveland play.
Columbus is a state capital. It should be big. Why other state capitals aren't is beyond me.
There are other differentiators than just sports. I grew up in Akron and I never paid to see the teams in Cleveland play.
Columbus is a state capital. It should be big. Why other state capitals aren't is beyond me.
Columbus is big because of the companies headquartered there and OSU. Just being a state capital is no guarantee that a city will be big. That said, it's somewhat surprising that some state capitals aren't bigger than they are, namely Tallahassee. It's the capital of one of the most populous states in the Union plus it's home to large universities (FSU, FAMU). That one is probably the most puzzling to me.
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.
