Is the Triangle (Raleigh/Durham) more similar to Richmond or Atlanta? (rates, metropolitan)
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.
How about this? The Triangle is nothing like Richmond or Atlanta. It's a unique place and never tried to develop like anywhere else. I don't think the regional planners here travelled to Richmond or Atlanta to see how things were being done. This is a multi-nodal region and developed quickly because of the three major universities in the region. Which caused one of the largest research parks in the world to be developed in the middle with research and tech companies locating to the area. Nothing like this occurred in Richmond or Atlanta. I went to college in Atlanta and I didn't see or feel anything remotely similiar to the Triangle. But, Richmond and Atlanta do share a rich cival war history. However, the Triangle does not because it developed much later. In the Triangle, we never had schools or streets named after Confederate generals or large monuments dedicated to the Confederacy (i.e. Stone Mountain). Honestly, I rarely saw the Confederate flag while growing up so I was really surprised when I went to school in Georgia and saw the Confederate flag as part of the state flag. So, in conclusion the Triangle is nothing like Atlanta or Richmond and is creating it's own unique path. And the people here are happy with that. We do not necessarily take it as a compliment to be viewed as similar to either of those places. Real talk
The Triangle does share similarities to Atlanta and Richmond because its individual cities existed well before state leaders established RTP as the masterplanned regional jobs center of the region which is what you're referring to. And you don't find as many Civil War/Confederate relics and such in the Triangle because NC as a whole was a backwater in that era which is why it was the last state to secede (or next to last, depending on what date is used). It wasn't until railroads came along and Northern industrialists began investing in the South after the war that NC began truly experiencing a measure of prosperity. If NC had geography that was more conducive to larger ports along the coast with rivers that went inland enough for transportation and commercial purposes, things would be different. But there's no legitimate reason whatsoever to consider it an insult whenever the Triangle is compared to other Southern cities.
That's strangely true. I often forget that Raleigh was quite small until the 1980's or so, as you mentioned. On a side note, I remember driving through Columbia, S.C. once and thinking, "This is basically Raleigh without the growth." In other words, a small-ish southern capital with a major university and not much else, aka Raleigh before RTP. No disrespect intended regarding Columbia, but it's an interesting thought.
That's essentially true but historically Columbia was also more of a railroad and textile hub than Raleigh and due to its central position within the state, its position as the state's largest city for the second half of the previous century, and its more white-collar economy (in constrast to Charleston, Greenville, Spartanburg, etc with larger industrial bases), much of the state's banking, insurance, law, etc industries coalesced in Columbia throughout the 20th century which, along with Fort Jackson, rounded out the local economy. But you're right in that Columbia hasn't experienced breakneck growth like Raleigh so its easier to see how it compares to Raleigh in terms of their historic core layouts (both were planned and purposely built as state capital cities) and fixed economic anchors.
The Triangle does share similarities to Atlanta and Richmond because its individual cities existed well before state leaders established RTP as the masterplanned regional jobs center of the region which is what you're referring to. And you don't find as many Civil War/Confederate relics and such in the Triangle because NC as a whole was a backwater in that era which is why it was the last state to secede (or next to last, depending on what date is used). It wasn't until railroads came along and Northern industrialists began investing in the South after the war that NC began truly experiencing a measure of prosperity. If NC had geography that was more conducive to larger ports along the coast with rivers that went inland enough for transportation and commercial purposes, things would be different. But there's no legitimate reason whatsoever to consider it an insult whenever the Triangle is compared to other Southern cities.
I take it as a blessing that NC as you say was considered "backwater", therefore slavery and human bondage was not as intrical to the economy as other Southern states. So, NC along with Tennessee did not have the urgent need to secede from the Union to maintain slavery. But, that's a totally different topic that shouldn't be discussed on this thread. However, NC has outperformed all other slave holding states after that period of time. The South is a very big region and very diverse as well. Just because two cities or metros are in the South doesn't necessarily make them have similarities. What are the similarities between Atlanta and Jackson Miss? or Richmond and Greenville SC? In my opinion the Triangle developed differently and economy is based on total different criteria than any other area in the South. I'm not saying the Triangle is better, I just say it's very different than Atlanta or Richmond. I think some people are trying to fit square pegs in round holes when they try to compare certain cities just because they are considered in the South.
I take it as a blessing that NC as you say was considered "backwater", therefore slavery and human bondage was not as intrical to the economy as other Southern states. So, NC along with Tennessee did not have the urgent need to secede from the Union to maintain slavery. But, that's a totally different topic that shouldn't be discussed on this thread. However, NC has outperformed all other slave holding states after that period of time. The South is a very big region and very diverse as well. Just because two cities or metros are in the South doesn't necessarily make them have similarities. What are the similarities between Atlanta and Jackson Miss? or Richmond and Greenville SC? In my opinion the Triangle developed differently and economy is based on total different criteria than any other area in the South. I'm not saying the Triangle is better, I just say it's very different than Atlanta or Richmond. I think some people are trying to fit square pegs in round holes when they try to compare certain cities just because they are considered in the South.
It's not that all three metros are simply in the South but rather the same general region of the South. Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia are southern states located along the Eastern Seaboard. IMO, there are more similarities than differences between them and that includes metro areas, as well. I would compare Raleigh to Atlanta before I would compare Raleigh to Nashville, for example. Nashville and cities west of the Appalachians have a slightly different flavor. And I agree that Raleigh and Austin are similar cities, but Texas is a different world compared to North Carolina in many ways, unlike closer states such as Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia.
It's not that all three metros are simply in the South but rather the same general region of the South. Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia are southern states located along the Eastern Seaboard. IMO, there are more similarities than differences between them and that includes metro areas, as well. I would compare Raleigh to Atlanta before I would compare Raleigh to Nashville, for example. Nashville and cities west of the Appalachians have a slightly different flavor. And I agree that Raleigh and Austin are similar cities, but Texas is a different world compared to North Carolina in many ways, unlike closer states such as Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia.
Ok, but I also see Georgia in the same region as Alabama and Mississippi. All three states look similar in size and shape and are considered deep south states. All three states once had the Confederate flag as part of their State flag. Georgia has very little Atlantic coastline compared to other eastern seaboard states. If you go straight north from Atlanta you are basically in Tennessee. So, there is a good portion of Georgia that is west of Appalachia. Just a very small part of far western North Carolina neighbors Georgia, the same as Virginia and Tennessee. I don't really see many people on this board that consider Virginia and Tennessee as neighboring states? Therefore in my opinion, the Triangle and Atlanta are in separate regions with a distance of 400 miles between the two metros which is the same distance as the Triangle to Philadelphia.
Ok, but I also see Georgia in the same region as Alabama and Mississippi. All three states look similar in size and shape and are considered deep south states. All three states once had the Confederate flag as part of their State flag. Georgia has very little Atlantic coastline compared to other eastern seaboard states. If you go straight north from Atlanta you are basically in Tennessee. So, there is a good portion of Georgia that is west of Appalachia. Just a very small part of far western North Carolina neighbors Georgia, the same as Virginia and Tennessee. I don't really see many people on this board that consider Virginia and Tennessee as neighboring states? Therefore in my opinion, the Triangle and Atlanta are in separate regions with a distance of 400 miles between the two metros which is the same distance as the Triangle to Philadelphia.
You can't be serious with the bolded, that's just ridiculous.
It also seems as if you are attempting to alter history and align North Carolina out of the South, just as many here do with Virginia.
The bottom line in your insinuation isn't valid. Slavery wasn't as common in North Georgia as it was in Eastern North Carolina. Period. We don't have any nearby cities like Fayetteville with restored slave markets in the heart of their Downtown. Don't pretend the travesty didn't include your region, as it most certainly did.
I take it as a blessing that NC as you say was considered "backwater", therefore slavery and human bondage was not as intrical to the economy as other Southern states. So, NC along with Tennessee did not have the urgent need to secede from the Union to maintain slavery. But, that's a totally different topic that shouldn't be discussed on this thread. However, NC has outperformed all other slave holding states after that period of time. The South is a very big region and very diverse as well. Just because two cities or metros are in the South doesn't necessarily make them have similarities. What are the similarities between Atlanta and Jackson Miss? or Richmond and Greenville SC? In my opinion the Triangle developed differently and economy is based on total different criteria than any other area in the South. I'm not saying the Triangle is better, I just say it's very different than Atlanta or Richmond. I think some people are trying to fit square pegs in round holes when they try to compare certain cities just because they are considered in the South.
Atlanta and Jackson actually do have similarities as Southern state capitals that have been majority Black for a long time with similar Civil Rights profiles and a commitment to their HBCUs. They also face similar struggles as their state's largest city and capital that have been under Black Democratic political leadership for decades and being chastised and hamstrung by state political leadership under the control of conservative White Republican politicians. Even more locally, you have some of that same racial/political polarization among those cities and some of their respective suburbs, creating stark metro divisions along lines of race and SES. Georgia and Mississippi were historically quintessential Deep South states so it's not surprising that their respective capitals would have some commonalities despite their size difference.
Richmond and Greenville don't have a ton of similarities but notably both have engaged in similar strategies to revitalize their downtowns by focusing on their rivers and putting an emphasis on historic preservation. I'm not sure if textiles were ever as big in Richmond as they were in Greenville, but even so, textiles and tobacco are legacy industries in the South that make similar marks on the local landscape economically, architecturally, culturally, etc. and they have allowed both Greenville and Richmond to retain a more blue-collar, salt-of-the-earth muted feel amidst examples of much of the newfound economic prosperity enjoyed by both cities. Columbia and Charleston especially have more similarities with Richmond whie Greenville seemingly has more in common with other VA cities such as Lynchburg and Roanoke.
I agree with you that RTP was a total gamechanger for both the Triangle and NC and causes them to stand out of that basis. But I think you may be going just a wee bit overboard about how unique it is in the South. Cities like Huntsville and Austin have done very similar things when it comes to a physical research campus with loads of government investment and local universities acting as partners in economic growth (the former) or by relying on the elements that comprise the intellectual concept of research parks (partnerships, collaborations, out-of-the-box thinking, etc) and not as much on the part about it being an actual physical place with discrete boundaries.
So yes, while the Triangle is quite distinct in several ways, it's not a fire-breathing pink unicorn that speaks 10 human languages either. Even the city regularly regarded as the most unique in the South (and many times the country at large), New Orleans, gets compared to other cities in the larger Mississippi River Valley and Gulf Coast regions all the time, and rightly so. Y'all are special but not *that* special. As a matter of fact, there was even another city in NC that had a designated research campus that didn't really spur a lot of regional economic growth until IBM came along and set up shop and now the rest is history.
Ok, but I also see Georgia in the same region as Alabama and Mississippi. All three states look similar in size and shape and are considered deep south states. All three states once had the Confederate flag as part of their State flag. Georgia has very little Atlantic coastline compared to other eastern seaboard states. If you go straight north from Atlanta you are basically in Tennessee. So, there is a good portion of Georgia that is west of Appalachia. Just a very small part of far western North Carolina neighbors Georgia, the same as Virginia and Tennessee. I don't really see many people on this board that consider Virginia and Tennessee as neighboring states? Therefore in my opinion, the Triangle and Atlanta are in separate regions with a distance of 400 miles between the two metros which is the same distance as the Triangle to Philadelphia.
Here's the thing: it's very possible for cities to belong to different subregions at the same time. It also needs to be recognized that historically, subregions were defined mostly by geography but since the 20th century, it has been transportation links, common economic and demographic features, and metropolitan inclusion/exclusion that have come to play stronger roles in defining regions. Today everybody in NC thinks of Charlotte and Raleigh pretty much being in the same "part" or section of the state due to their similar development histories, how certain key industries brought similar levels of prosperity to each, and how I-85 has come to become the primary identifier of what is known as NC's Piedmont Crescent. But 150 years ago, NC was separated like Germany was during the Cold War: east and west. The east had all the political power and the west was just "there." Charlotte was often derided as doing its own thing ("Great State of Mecklenburg") or as SC's largest city and the truth is that if it weren't for Charlotte's SC connections during the colonial and antebellum eras and natives of SC later on that moved there and took industries and the city with it to new heights, it probably wouldn't be anything close to what it is now. But today, folks even in NC think of Charlotte and Raleigh as just feuding siblings both growing a lot in their own ways. So you can't really think of regional identification and designation as so exclusive and binary.
Anyone who doesn't consider TN and VA neighboring states can't read a map. However, very few consider both to be in the same subregion and they identify differently on that front with TN embracing a mid-South designation and VA a mid-Atlantic one.
Today, regions are about where people and industry are concentrated and directly connected by interstates and/or passenger rail which foster interconnectivity, planning, and collaboration amongst them. Looking at a population density or light pollution map, it's clear that the Triangle and Atlanta are located along the same line that includes other relatively close metros, only at opposite ends. There's even an officially unofficial name for the region they belong to: the emerging Piedmont Atlantic megaregion. And I guarantee any observant driver who were to travel from Atlanta to the Triangle and then from the Triangle to Philly would be much more likely to group the Triangle with a larger region that incudes Atlanta than one including everything to the north up to Philly. The stretch of cities from Richmond to Philly were built by/on adjacent bodies of water having served significant economic purposes with relatively short direct connections to the Atlantic. Although Raleigh is technically a fall line city like Richmond, DC, Baltimore, and Philly, you wouldn't really know it since it didn't confer much economic advantage due to NC's rugged coastline which prevented any meaningful economic ties to a sizable, thriving port city. Just like the other Southern cities, it tooks railroads and world wars for enough government infrastructural investment to take place in the Triangle, giving all of them economies not directly reliant on agriculture. It just so happened that in the Triangle, instead of the military leaving behind property it had already developed and giving it back to cities for their own commercial use or building major installations to house large numbers of permanently-stationed service personnel as ways to create jobs and prosperity in the lagging South, state government took the lead, partnering with the private sector and academia to establish a big modern jobs center to transiton the region away from traditional industries that were already shedding jobs to those requiring advanced degrees, technical expertise, and office skills which, in many ways, was more preferable than military investment. Either way, it put the Triangle in line with peers experiencing their initial or at most secondary growth spurts on the way to becoming major players on the national stage.
Besides, if Atlanta and Raleigh aren't in the same region, to which region does each belong?
You can't be serious with the bolded, that's just ridiculous.
It also seems as if you are attempting to alter history and align North Carolina out of the South, just as many here do with Virginia.
The bottom line in your insinuation isn't valid. Slavery wasn't as common in North Georgia as it was in Eastern North Carolina. Period. We don't have any nearby cities like Fayetteville with restored slave markets in the heart of their Downtown. Don't pretend the travesty didn't include your region, as it most certainly did.
How is my statement ridiculous? I think most people would agree that those three states are in the same region (i.e. Deep South). Georgia shares an entire western border with Alabama. And I never said North Carolina is not the South that would be ridiculous, it's in the Upper South. North Carolina shares a true border with three states, Virginia, South Carolina and Tennessee. I say the Triangle and Atlanta are definitely in the South but different regions of the South. And just being in the Piedmont region doesn't make them somewhat similar, the Piedmont extends from Alabama to New York which means it extends from the Deep South to the North East. And I won't get into a slavery discussion on this thread because it's off topic, but I never said slavery did not exist in NC, I just said it was more prevalent in other States. At the beginning of the Civil War, Georgia was the second largest slave state in the South while North Carolina was the seventh. That's all I will ever say on this subject again.
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.
