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.
Give it a rest, Richmond is winning by 10 percentage points.....there's a reason for that.
It's a poll on the internet. Let's keep that in mind.
One thing that I can really appreciate about many of the recent posts in this thread is that they are thoughtful and reasoned. How refreshing.
Regarding Raleigh never needing a resurrection of its core, that's partially correct IMO. Since the 1960s in particular, Raleigh has been becoming a city in the model most prevalent over the last half century. Prior to then, Raleigh was a much smaller city in comparison to the cities it's compared to now. Largely, that former Raleigh is nestled within what Raleigh became since the 1960s. For locals, that former smaller city is generally referred to as ITB (Inside the Beltline). We all know what development meant across all of America in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s in particular. Generally on C-D, we all lament and largely disparage this time period in our nation's development and cities in the Sunbelt get pelted for being developed in this method; this sentiment is shared by the pro-ITB crowd as well. For Raleigh during the period from the sixties until 2000, its core was left largely ignored. The state government kept the city center chugging along but it didn't grow in the way the rest of the city did. There was a very strong and active "protectionist movement" of the old city during this time. This was both good and bad in my opinion. We all know what the bad part is but the good part is that it didn't get largely flattened by a freeway viaduct, redeveloped in car oriented planning model or put into a state of decline like happened to many other cities. The core's immediate neighborhoods largely thrived and remained relevant during the suburban era. The core was bolstered primarily by state government and the state's largest university. I think that this is what people mean when they say that Raleigh's core largely doesn't need to be reclaimed from some sort of abandonment, despair, etc.
While many other cities are busy reclaiming their urban cores to varying levels of success due to revenue, growth, etc., Raleigh is actually busy building its urban core to better match its current population and stature. It's a different sort of "urban renewal", it's actually urban place making. To the visitor or novice to Raleigh who only sees what's currently there or is currently under construction, it's not as evident as it is to those who know where Raleigh's core is heading. For me, the excitement about what's happening and what will continue to happen in Raleigh's core is bolstered by the extreme growth of the city and region and the energy and dollars that are enabling it to happen. Barring another meltdown of the economy like happened in 2008, I expect Raleigh's core to be an incredibly different place 5 or 10 years from now than it is today. There's a lot planned and it's only accelerating as time moves on. For me, it's exciting to be part of that and watching it happen.
It's a poll on the internet. Let's keep that in mind.
One thing that I can really appreciate about many of the recent posts in this thread is that they are thoughtful and reasoned. How refreshing.
Regarding Raleigh never needing a resurrection of its core, that's partially correct IMO. Since the 1960s in particular, Raleigh has been becoming a city in the model most prevalent over the last half century. Prior to then, Raleigh was a much smaller city in comparison to the cities it's compared to now. Largely, that former Raleigh is nestled within what Raleigh became since the 1960s. For locals, that former smaller city is generally referred to as ITB (Inside the Beltline). We all know what development meant across all of America in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s in particular. Generally on C-D, we all lament and largely disparage this time period in our nation's development and cities in the Sunbelt get pelted for being developed in this method; this sentiment is shared by the pro-ITB crowd as well. For Raleigh during the period from the sixties until 2000, its core was left largely ignored. The state government kept the city center chugging along but it didn't grow in the way the rest of the city did. There was a very strong and active "protectionist movement" of the old city during this time. This was both good and bad in my opinion. We all know what the bad part is but the good part is that it didn't get largely flattened by a freeway viaduct, redeveloped in car oriented planning model or put into a state of decline like happened to many other cities. The core's immediate neighborhoods largely thrived and remained relevant during the suburban era. The core was bolstered primarily by state government and the state's largest university. I think that this is what people mean when they say that Raleigh's core largely doesn't need to be reclaimed from some sort of abandonment, despair, etc.
While many other cities are busy reclaiming their urban cores to varying levels of success due to revenue, growth, etc., Raleigh is actually busy building its urban core to better match its current population and stature. It's a different sort of "urban renewal", it's actually urban place making. To the visitor or novice to Raleigh who only sees what's currently there or is currently under construction, it's not as evident as it is to those who know where Raleigh's core is heading. For me, the excitement about what's happening and what will continue to happen in Raleigh's core is bolstered by the extreme growth of the city and region and the energy and dollars that are enabling it to happen. Barring another meltdown of the economy like happened in 2008, I expect Raleigh's core to be an incredibly different place 5 or 10 years from now than it is today. There's a lot planned and it's only accelerating as time moves on. For me, it's exciting to be part of that and watching it happen.
I actually think this is happening all over the South and think it's hard to get a solid visual as an outsider, especially during the transformation period, then boom....but you are right, it is happening.
I actually think this is happening all over the South and think it's hard to get a solid visual as an outsider, especially during the transformation period, then boom....but you are right, it is happening.
I suppose the emphasis for Raleigh is that its extreme growth is accelerating the downtown place making. I am not sure that there is another Southern city outside of Florida that has moved itself up the ladder in the way that Raleigh has in such a short period of time. Its situation is somewhat unique because it was hardly on the radar in the Southeast a half century ago and cities/metros that are much smaller than Raleigh today were actually much larger then.
I suppose the emphasis for Raleigh is that its extreme growth is accelerating the downtown place making. I am not sure that there is another Southern city outside of Florida that has moved itself up the ladder in the way that Raleigh has in such a short period of time. Its situation is somewhat unique because it was hardly on the radar in the Southeast a half century ago and cities/metros that are much smaller than Raleigh today were actually much larger then.
I am not considering Texas to be Southern by default because of what I hear out of Texans here on C-D.
That said, Austin is another city that's done something very similar but it wasn't as tiny in 1960. This is just municipal population but Austin was ~187K in that year's Census; Raleigh was about ~66K.
Of the Southeastern cities with populations above 200K today, NIC Texas, DC or MD since they are often disputed, Raleigh ranked 8th in population in 2015. When the next Census estimates come out, it will surely pass Va.Beach at 7th. Of these same 24 cities in 1960, Raleigh ranked 23rd. This is my point.
I understand that size is not all about municipal population alone and that Southeastern cities in particular have a history of municipal limits that range from tiny and never changing like Miami to huge and consolidated limits like Jacksonville and everything in between but I think that no matter what metric is used to map Raleigh's growth, it will always show a meteoric rise of the city in comparison to others in the Southeast since 1960.
I am not considering Texas to be Southern by default because of what I hear out of Texans here on C-D.
There are plenty of Texans here on C-D who consider their state Southern. Plenty.
Quote:
That said, Austin is another city that's done something very similar but it wasn't as tiny in 1960. This is just municipal population but Austin was ~187K in that year's Census; Raleigh was about ~66K.
Of the Southeastern cities with populations above 200K today, NIC Texas, DC or MD since they are often disputed, Raleigh ranked 8th in population in 2015. When the next Census estimates come out, it will surely pass Va.Beach at 7th. Of these same 24 cities in 1960, Raleigh ranked 23rd. This is my point.
I understand that size is not all about municipal population alone and that Southeastern cities in particular have a history of municipal limits that range from tiny and never changing like Miami to huge and consolidated limits like Jacksonville and everything in between but I think that no matter what metric is used to map Raleigh's growth, it will always show a meteoric rise of the city in comparison to others in the Southeast since 1960.
If you limit it to the Southeast (Texas is Southern but not Southeastern) and exclude Florida, you may have a point but it's a considerably less crowded field.
Give it a rest, Richmond is winning by 10 percentage points.....there's a reason for that.
NC cities generally get slagged on City-Data as boring/sterile with no factual basis for it, mostly emotion. Despite being completely different places in terms of nightlife and cultural richness compared to 20 years ago, Raleigh and Charlotte simply haven't had time to shake their 90s image. Both cities sprawled massively in the 90s without increasing their density for 10 years, without fostering any neighborhoods with character during that time. In the 15 years since then they've done a good job and caught up to where they should be for cities their size, but you wouldn't know that reading C-D. The groupthink here moves more slowly than that.
There are plenty of Texans here on C-D who consider their state Southern. Plenty.
If you limit it to the Southeast (Texas is Southern but not Southeastern) and exclude Florida, you may have a point but it's a considerably less crowded field.
Okay, let's just say that Texas is on the list and in play. Back in 1960, Austin was the 67th largest urban area in the country. All the usual Southern players were on the list as well (Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, etc......). For the sake of this thread's relevance, Richmond was 52nd. In the top 100 were also the following cities:
Birmingham (36th)
Mobile (58th)
Shreveport (76th)
Baton Rouge (81st)
Savannah (83rd)
Jackson (85th)
Montgomery (90th)
Chattanooga (93rd)
Lubbock (95th)
Greensboro (100th)
In total, 28 cities in the South (excluding DC) were in the top 100.
Not on the list: Raleigh
Also not on the list: Orlando (pre "Mouse")
So, let's change your hello from Austin to hello from Orlando. Even then, Orlando was already 33% larger than Raleigh back in 1960 and I did caveat Florida from my previous assertion.
In addition to much of the list above, the biggest Southern "losers" nationally since 1960 appear to be:
Nightlife and Entertainment: Glenwood South is the premier nightlife district in Raleigh. It is pretty good. Where are the other nightlife areas? Richmond has nightlife from The Fan to Shockoe Bottom and seems to have a larger range of nightlife options--again, unless we use the entire Triangle, but I won't make a declaration. Even Manchester has a nightlife pulse. I think both have adequate nightlife comparable to their size...
Moore Square/Wilmington Street/Fayetteville Street area of the CBD has an equal amount as Glenwood South, and continues to add more.
Hillsborough Street has about 2 miles of continuous characterful neighborhoods with street retail, in the NCSU area, and it is rapidly adding more.
The Warehouse District is yet another area which historically was a bit scattered and underutilized, but will transform once the new projects all get built.
Five Points is another smaller nightlife area north of Glenwood South. Unlike most of the others, this has been around since Raleigh was itty bitty.
North Person Street is another community on the northeastern end of downtown which is developing a center of its own.
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.
Even then, Orlando was already 33% larger than Raleigh back in 1960 and I did caveat Florida from my previous assertion. 
