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.
Connecticut in general just has very few redeeming qualities. There's a reason GE and Aetna left the state.
It's basically a gigantic bedroom community for NYC, having all of the negative qualities of a major east coast city (high taxes, high fees, high COL, financial problems, crappy weather, etc.) without the perks.
CT also has quite a few major companies for its size and major institutions. It’s one of the most educated and wealthiest states overall, there are a lot of historic cities and towns, a good regional food scene in parts, and some decent regional transit that would be considered great in most of the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo
You missed the articles after 2014 where Detroit's economy grew past MSP again. You can find the latest numbers here:
Well, it’s impressive that the Twin Cities are as close as they are as it certainly wasn’t the case at the start of the century. It seems reasonable to consider the two peers in some ways though Detroit also has a more extensive CSA and Windsor across the river which doesn’t get counted but is connected to Detroit in many ways.
Could this be due to Providence's "suburbs" are just more urban in comparison and are really more like an extension of Providence? So, instead of looking at Providence as a city that is only 18 square miles and has 180,000 people, it is more like a city that is say 400,000 in 70 square miles when looking at adjacent places like Pawtucket, East Providence, Cranston, North Providence, etc.
True, but those suburbs do not offer anything special. Warwick and most of Cranston is suburban. Warwick is generic. Same shopping road which you might find in any suburb anyplace. East Providence is stricly residential and nothing special.Pawtucket is very gritty if that's your thing, but does not offer any stimulating urban experience. Only Garden City in Cranston has anything appealing from an urban perspective, from my point of view. What benefit is an area being more urban if the only thing it offers is a little more of a built up environment?
Providence is a nice place for those who want a smal city in the NE who may be priced out of the big cities. But, as it should be expected, because of its small size things to do and places in the city itself (as well as the suburbs) are very limited. At least for what I am looking for. It just is severely lacking when compared with the nearby biggies such as Boston when there is a need for a true urban experience and amenities. Hartford and all of these other New England mid-sized cities are no different in that regard.
Beyond the fact it makes no sense to distinguish Raleigh-Durham for any practical reasons, Raleigh itself has grown quite a bit. Not that long ago, it’s peers were Richmond, Birmingham, and Baton Rouge. To say it’s moved up would be an understatement.
Of course, but to say it is in a different tier than Richmond would be hyperbole...
Actually, there are clear distinguishable cultural traits between Raleigh and Durham. Raleigh and Durham are one metropolis, but as is similar to other places (Norfolk for example), the actual weight of Raleigh is best gauged as the Raleigh MSA. Raleigh is pretty much the clear bottom of the bracket when you start conflating its CSA as Raleigh's actual weight class, that much isn't really debatable...
I'm in Fayetteville with family and we are headed to Raleigh to see family later for the next two days, maybe I'll see you! Richmond isn't far, brother. I encourage you to make a trip this year and spend a couple days. Raleigh and Richmond are still in the same tier as each other. That doesn't fit the city-data standard that any and everything has to be measured by population size, I'm aware. Any lead Raleigh has on Richmond is marginal, and I don't necessarily disagree that maybe its pulled ahead of Richmond slightly, but there are a lot of factors to be considered and the experience within both cities does not validate an assertion that Raleigh is in a higher class of cities. Not even close...
True, but those suburbs do not offer anything special. Warwick and most of Cranston is suburban. Warwick is generic. Same shopping road which you might find in any suburb anyplace. East Providence is stricly residential and nothing special.Pawtucket is very gritty if that's your thing, but does not offer any stimulating urban experience. Only Garden City in Cranston has anything appealing from an urban perspective, from my point of view. What benefit is an area being more urban if the only thing it offers is a little more of a built up environment?
Providence is a nice place for those who want a smal city in the NE who may be priced out of the big cities. But, as it should be expected, because of its small size things to do and places in the city itself (as well as the suburbs) are very limited. At least for what I am looking for. It just is severely lacking when compared with the nearby biggies such as Boston when there is a need for a true urban experience and amenities. Hartford and all of these other New England mid-sized cities are no different in that regard.
To be honest, a lot of these Southern boomtowns are similar in terms of a smaller core say 18 square miles, but their outer neighborhoods are similar to what you described for the Providence suburbs, because a lot of those cities just gobbled up such neighborhoods through annexation. So, in some cases, it may not be that much different than similar areas in that region or in other regions.
To be honest, a lot of these Southern boomtowns are similar in terms of a smaller core say 18 square miles, but their outer neighborhoods are similar to what you described for the Providence suburbs, because a lot of those cities just gobbled up such neighborhoods through annexation. So, in some cases, it may not be that much different than similar areas in that region or in other regions.
Very true. Great observation! Only thing I would add is that southern sububs of such cities as Nashville, Charlotte, Atlanta, Raleigh and Birmingham have better looking and better functioning suburbs, and are more affordable than their peer cities in the North.
Of course, but to say it is in a different tier than Richmond would be hyperbole...
Actually, there are clear distinguishable cultural traits between Raleigh and Durham. Raleigh and Durham are one metropolis, but as is similar to other places (Norfolk for example), the actual weight of Raleigh is best gauged as the Raleigh MSA. Raleigh is pretty much the clear bottom of the bracket when you start conflating its CSA as Raleigh's actual weight class, that much isn't really debatable...
I'm in Fayetteville with family and we are headed to Raleigh to see family later for the next two days, maybe I'll see you! Richmond isn't far, brother. I encourage you to make a trip this year and spend a couple days. Raleigh and Richmond are still in the same tier as each other. That doesn't fit the city-data standard that any and everything has to be measured by population size, I'm aware. Any lead Raleigh has on Richmond is marginal, and I don't necessarily disagree that maybe its pulled ahead of Richmond slightly, but there are a lot of factors to be considered and the experience within both cities does not validate an assertion that Raleigh is in a higher class of cities. Not even close...
Richmond is a city of 220,000. As it’s an independent city, it’s hard to replicate a comparison to Wake, but take the city of Richmond, add the neighboring counties of Henrico and Chesterfield and you get an area roughly the size of Wake. In 1990, it was about 50% larger population-wise than Wake and Richmond was roughly the same size as Raleigh. Now, Wake is about 20% more populous than Richmond/Henrico/Chesterfield and Raleigh is about 110% bigger than Richmond. The only reason that the two metros have similar numbers (population and GDP, though Raleigh has more of both) is because the Greater Richmond area is a 100-mile conglomerate much larger than the Raleigh MSA (and much of it with less commuting than Raleigh has with counties outside it’s metro).
In every conceivable way, Raleigh is ahead of and playing a different game than Richmond, which is something that wasn’t true 30 years ago. The only thing Richmond has over Raleigh is a walkable downtown. But then Charleston has that too so.
I won’t even mention that the entire city of Raleigh isn’t even in the Raleigh MSA which is just kind of nuts.
CT also has quite a few major companies for its size and major institutions. It’s one of the most educated and wealthiest states overall, there are a lot of historic cities and towns, a good regional food scene in parts, and some decent regional transit that would be considered great in most of the US.
True, CT does have a great education system and transit connectivity to places like NYC and Boston.
But overall, that doesn't outweigh the negative qualities, at least for me.
Richmond is a city of 220,000. As it’s an independent city, it’s hard to replicate a comparison to Wake, but take the city of Richmond, add the neighboring counties of Henrico and Chesterfield and you get an area roughly the size of Wake. In 1990, it was about 50% larger population-wise than Wake and Richmond was roughly the same size as Raleigh. Now, Wake is about 20% more populous than Richmond/Henrico/Chesterfield and Raleigh is about 110% bigger than Richmond. The only reason that the two metros have similar numbers (population and GDP, though Raleigh has more of both) is because the Greater Richmond area is a 100-mile conglomerate much larger than the Raleigh MSA (and much of it with less commuting than Raleigh has with counties outside it’s metro).
In every conceivable way, Raleigh is ahead of and playing a different game than Richmond, which is something that wasn’t true 30 years ago. The only thing Richmond has over Raleigh is a walkable downtown. But then Charleston has that too so.
I won’t even mention that the entire city of Raleigh isn’t even in the Raleigh MSA which is just kind of nuts.
There are two C-D-specific problems here:
-That thing where we pretend city proper doesn’t matter. Raleigh is certainly on the same tier, when it comes to amenities, and frankly, on the lower end of the tier.
-Outsized importance placed on population. When comparing the metros, the only clear advantage Raleigh holds over Richmond is population. If you want to place Raleigh above Richmond, that’s fine, but they’re clearly on the same tier.
Very true. Great observation! Only thing I would add is that southern sububs of such cities as Nashville, Charlotte, Atlanta, Raleigh and Birmingham have better looking and better functioning suburbs, and are more affordable than their peer cities in the North.
For the most part, but away from the coast even in the North, you can have similar suburbs that are just as affordable. With that said, I do get your point.
Although Columbus has not passed Cleveland or Cincinnati, one could argue that Columbus is now a very close peer metro in 2019. Their GDP's are all in a line #28Cin #29Cle and #30Cbus. All have metro populations between 2.0 and 2.2 million and each can claim an important stake in Ohio.
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.
