Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which of these cities is the best
Columbia SC 13 26.00%
Des Moines IA 10 20.00%
Boise ID 11 22.00%
Madison WI 16 32.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-14-2018, 03:56 PM
 
37,882 posts, read 41,956,856 times
Reputation: 27279

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric View Post
I have been to Columbia as well. It's decent but seems further back from the pack, though its size indicates its on the same general plane as the 3 others. So there's that.
Columbia is sort of the odd man out here in a few different ways.

Firstly, Boise and Des Moines benefit from being the only sizable cities in their small states and Madison is the boutique, darling, less diverse city in contrast to the Rustbelt city of Mikwaukee with the socioeconomic and racial issues common to Northern post-industrial cities. Columbia, on the other hand, doesn't really get much attention from the state as a city. Historically, the state's political clout has been concentrated in the Lowcountry and the Upstate as that is where the state's legacy industries were also concentrated (agriculture [via the "peculiar institution"], the port, tourism in Charleston; agriculture [peaches], textiles in the Upstate) and that still holds true for the most part today. Columbia was established by an act of the state legislature to be the new capital and a couple of years later it was also chosen to be the home of the state's flagship university and as far as the state is seemingly concerned, that is sufficient. Columbia's status as the centrally-located state capital in a state that's not very geographically large has resulted in a decent concentration of banks, insurance companies, law firms, etc. that serve the entire state, but instead of embracing a targeted, comprehensive, modern New South economic model in the mid 20th century like its neighbors NC and GA to transition the state's economy away from declining legacy industries to emerging, knowledge-based ones (which certainly would have benefitted Columbia more), SC leaders instead adopted a more protectionist position towards the textile industry specifically in the face of increasing competition from abroad in the 60's and 70's. Interestingly enough, the hollowing out of the textile industry is what set the stage for the Upstate's manufacturing boom as it freed up land previously occupied by textile mills and there was an available workforce already in place consisting of former textile workers. Charleston has a logistical advantage as an East Coast port city that makes it a prime location for manufacturing companies. After SC landed BMW and related suppliers, the state has essentially put all of its economic development eggs in the manufacturing basket and that doesn't really work to Columbia's advantage given the city's more white-collar economic underpinnings.

Secondly, Columbia lacks the geography of cities like Madison and Boise which have a coast/shore or mountains. While not as dramatic, Columbia's geographical setting isn't boring by any means; it is located along the fall line where the coastal plain gives way to the Piedmont, in the Sandhills, along two rivers that converge to create a third, and only a few miles north of a national park containing the largest tract of old growth bottomland hardwood forest left in the United States. And there are large man made lakes in the vicinity to take advantage of also. Columbia doesn't have a reputation as a sportsman's paradise or outdoor recreational city, but it offers several opportunities to get outside, explore, and have fun.

Thirdly, because Columbia's economy is relatively stable with state government, higher education, and the military (Fort Jackson) and hasn't historically had homegrown aggressive and forward-thinking businesspersons/investors/entrepreneurs, it has only been within the past 10-15 years or so that the city has seen the need to become more ambitious and competitive as its in-state peers have done in the areas of marketing, economic development, urban development, etc. In a way, it's somewhat impressive that Columbia has become what it is without having put forth much of an effort or in the areas where it has, having done so quietly. With this new approach, even more of its potential will get tapped and it will definitely be a city to look out for in the near future. The city has great bones and solid amenities, and while a sense of modesty has its place, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of self-promotion to get your name out there and lure more outside investment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top