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.
That's about as backwards as it gets. Most people who have only been to the Carolinas once or a few times have only been to the beach LOL.
Business only trips. I’m proud to be backwards.
Even when I was younger, I never thought much about Carolina beaches. Never knew that’s what they were known for. Florida, certainly.
I typically avoid vacationing in hot humid places as an adult.
KC and St. Louis over Raleigh and Charlotte.
Missouri over North Carolina.
Midwest over southeast.
Except for the growth, the southeast isn’t that impressive. That it’s affordable and it doesn’t get much snow are it’s big claims to fame, no offense.
The Southeast includes Florida. And even if you never thought much about the Outer Banks or Charleston beaches (really?), you do seem to like Floridian beaches, and the ocean is definitely an attribute for the Southeast. That said, if humidity is a dealbreaker, the Midwest will win.
The Southeast includes Florida. And even if you never thought much about the Outer Banks or Charleston beaches (really?), you do seem to like Floridian beaches, and the ocean is definitely an attribute for the Southeast. That said, if humidity is a dealbreaker, the Midwest will win.
Well, I’m indifferent towards Florida. It’s just that when I was younger, it was the only place down there I thought of for beaches. Maybe the Gulf Coast also, since that’s where people where I lived tended to go more.
For the sake of this thread, I understand that some people will choose the Carolina cities because they want to be close to the ocean. For me, it’s not nearly enough to compensate for all the other things I find unappealing about Charlotte, Raleigh, and North Carolina in general.
Except for the growth, the southeast isn’t that impressive. That it’s affordable and it doesn’t get much snow are it’s big claims to fame, no offense.
Yet Charlotte and the Triangle have higher housing costs than KC and St. Louis, and people and corporations continue to flock there. Why do you think that is?
Yet Charlotte and the Triangle have higher housing costs than KC and St. Louis, and people and corporations continue to flock there. Why do you think that is?
Friendlier business climate than the northeast where they’re moving from. Also, they’re cheaper and warmer than those places. I fully recognize that.
Yet personally, I still don’t find it appealing at all. But I’m front the south. Been there done that, never was my thing. After living in the midwest for the better part of 20 years, I’ve found it to be much more to my liking.
Couldn’t care less about growth as long as I have a job and can support my family.
I’d argue KC and St. Louis are two of the best places in terms of bang for your buck. Similar pay, cheaper housing. Best part is, you don’t have to worry about too many wealthy outsiders moving in and needlessly driving up the cost of everything.
I was just in Charlotte this past week on business. It is a nice growing southern city. It is different from when I was living there in the 90s. Even at that, the thought of it having more to offer then St. Louis or Kansas City is not true. It all comes down to preference. I am not the one for my city is better then yours type of stuff. When I lived in Charlotte, I found things to enjoy. The same can be said about the Raleigh Durham area. I prefer St Louis because of the livability and it offers more of what I look for in a city such as walkability and the urban lifestyle.
In what world does Charlotte or Raleigh have more infrastructure than St. Louis?
I don't understand that one either.
RDU and CLT maybe better than KCI and STL but anything else is a solid no!
Some people write stuff they know nothing about. St. Louis and KC has better freeway system street grid and LRT coverage (atleast in St. Louis) than Raleigh and Charlotte. That makes way for more urban living options.
Yet Charlotte and the Triangle have higher housing costs than KC and St. Louis, and people and corporations continue to flock there. Why do you think that is?
The housing stock in Midwest cities tends to be older than in Southern cities. For housing of the same age and square footage, I wonder if Charlotte and Raleigh/Durham are truly more costly than Kansas City and St. Louis.
I'm not sure of the answer, but comparing reasonably equivalent neighborhoods/zip codes (ex. Overland Park vs. south Charlotte) would be interesting. It's also possible that the disinvested areas in these two Midwest cities lower their average/median housing values. Charlotte and Raleigh/Durham have some lower income sections but not much in the way of areas that have largely emptied out.
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.
