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.
It's not that Charlotteans are dissing Nashville, but when claims are made that Nashville is on the same level as Charlotte, while having a 50% less GDP is erroneous at best. With Charlotte having a larger economy means that Charlotte has more jobs and higher paying jobs. This is my hypothesis but I don't think I'm too far off. This is why people move to cities with larger GDP, because people are looking for jobs and an opportunity to make for a better life.
Tsk Tsk Tsk.... Once again you ruin a decent thread with your endless dribble. Regardless of the imaginary political barriers, Nashville is very comparable to Charlotte my friend. You've overrated Charlotte to the tenth degree. There are no words... If I were to go to Charlotte based on your posts alone, I would expect a city on the same level as Houston or Atlanta. Charlotte's a little bit larger than Nashville. A little bit larger.
It's not that Charlotteans are dissing Nashville, but when claims are made that Nashville is on the same level as Charlotte, while having a 50% less GDP is erroneous at best.
"Level" is such a vague and ambiguous term. I have asserted that Charlotte's MSA is a little larger than Nashville's and I have indicated specific amenities that Nashville has that Charlotte does not. Other people have said other things. "Level" seems to be some sort of vague, all-encompassing term that in and of itself serves no real purpose, has no real meaning. And GDP is not the be all, end all either. You like to focus on GDP, fine. Others like to focus on other factors. There is room in the discussion for factors other than GDP to use to compare the two cities. Trying to use some catch-all term "level" is far fetched and trying to limit the discussion to GDP is far fetched. Charlotte beats Nashville in some aspects and Nashville beats Charlotte in other aspects.
These figures are almost a decade old. The most recent UA estimates, courtesy of the American Community Survey, put Charlotte at 952,806 and Nashville at 819,155. That's not to say that I don't think that Charlotte and Nashville aren't in the same league as cities/metro areas, because I think they are; Charlotte's MSA (1.7 million) isn't significantly larger than Nashville's (1.55 million). Just wanted to provide that updated info.
THANK YOU! When I tried to make a similar point, some acted as if I said something outrageous.
It's not that Charlotteans are dissing Nashville, but when claims are made that Nashville is on the same level as Charlotte, while having a 50% less GDP is erroneous at best.
I don't think so. We generally place cities in categories/leagues/levels based on population, not GDP. For instance, there's a general consensus here on CD that Houston and Atlanta are pretty much on the same level. Yet Houston's metro GDP ($403 billion) is basically twice that of Atlanta's ($269 million). But no one claims that they're not simply based on that figure alone. The two are very comparable on several levels, and the same is true of Charlotte and Nashville. The two are more or less on the same level. They offer very similar amenities as metro areas.
Quote:
This is why people move to cities with larger GDP, because people are looking for jobs and an opportunity to make for a better life.
I understand what you're getting at, but I think you overstate the importance of GDP as connected with migration levels. For instance, the Riverside, CA MSA (right outside LA) has 4.1 million people and grew by 26.5% from 2000-2008 and McAllen, TX MSA has 726K people (about the same size as Columbia's MSA) and grew by 27.6% from 2000-2008, but their GDPs are relatively small compared with other metros of similar size. Riverside's, at $110 billion, is actually less than Charlotte's, yet its MSA is over twice the size of ours and McAllen's GDP ($13.8 billion) is less than half the size of Columbia's ($30 billion). Conversely, cities like Chicago and Philadelphia still have high GDPs ($520 billion and $331 billion, respectively) but post average population growth rates. And then take a case like Pittsburgh. From 2000-2008, its MSA lost 3.3% of its population, yet from 2001-2008, its GDP grew by 32.5% (from $86 billion to $114 billion). In comparison, Charlotte's MSA population grew 27.9% from 2000-2008, and the GDP grew from $80 billion to $118 billion from 2001-2008, an increase of 47.5%. So GDP amount or growth doesn't always translate to more people moving to that particular metro area or more people finding it desirable, nor does the opposite necessarily hold true in all cases either.
Honestly, I think Charlotte's stature relative to Nashville's in this thread is being overinflated a bit. Charlotte is ahead of Nashville in terms of population, growth, and GDP, but for all intents and purposes, they are still peer cities within the same tier.
I don't think so. We generally place cities in categories/leagues/levels based on population, not GDP. For instance, there's a general consensus here on CD that Houston and Atlanta are pretty much on the same level. Yet Houston's metro GDP ($403 billion) is basically twice that of Atlanta's ($269 million). But no one claims that they're not simply based on that figure alone. The two are very comparable on several levels, and the same is true of Charlotte and Nashville. The two are more or less on the same level. They offer very similar amenities as metro areas.
I understand what you're getting at, but I think you overstate the importance of GDP as connected with migration levels. For instance, the Riverside, CA MSA (right outside LA) has 4.1 million people and grew by 26.5% from 2000-2008 and McAllen, TX MSA has 726K people (about the same size as Columbia's MSA) and grew by 27.6% from 2000-2008, but their GDPs are relatively small compared with other metros of similar size. Riverside's, at $110 billion, is actually less than Charlotte's, yet its MSA is over twice the size of ours and McAllen's GDP ($13.8 billion) is less than half the size of Columbia's ($30 billion). Conversely, cities like Chicago and Philadelphia still have high GDPs ($520 billion and $331 billion, respectively) but post average population growth rates. And then take a case like Pittsburgh. From 2000-2008, its MSA lost 3.3% of its population, yet from 2001-2008, its GDP grew by 32.5% (from $86 billion to $114 billion). In comparison, Charlotte's MSA population grew 27.9% from 2000-2008, and the GDP grew from $80 billion to $118 billion from 2001-2008, an increase of 47.5%. So GDP amount or growth doesn't always translate to more people moving to that particular metro area or more people finding it desirable, nor does the opposite necessarily hold true in all cases either.
Honestly, I think Charlotte's stature relative to Nashville's in this thread is being overinflated a bit. Charlotte is ahead of Nashville in terms of population, growth, and GDP, but for all intents and purposes, they are still peer cities within the same tier.
I absolutely agree with this. If having a higher GDP propelled Charlotte into a different league it would have the amenities of a bigger league city. I don't see that Charlotte does. As with all cities in the same tier Charlotte has some things Nashville doesn't and Nashville has somethings that Charlotte doesn't.
I absolutely agree with this. If having a higher GDP propelled Charlotte into a different league it would have the amenities of a bigger league city. I don't see that Charlotte does. As with all cities in the same tier Charlotte has some things Nashville doesn't and Nashville has somethings that Charlotte doesn't.
You can thank UrbanCharlotte for ruining this thread with stats that only tell one side of the story... According to him Charlotte is beyond the level of every city in the USA, except for NYC.
[quote=metro.m;11197641]You can thank UrbanCharlotte for ruining this thread with stats that only tell one side of the story... According to him Charlotte is beyond the level of every city in the USA, except for NYC.
Quote:
In defense, I don't think urban really meant that, if you look at his posts he agrees that certain cities have it better than charlotte, and he does make excellent points in the debate.
Give it up DeaconJ. This thread was obviously started by a few young insecure Nashvillains (or whatever the heck they call themselves in that town) that wish to throw stones at cities in the South that are larger than Nashville. In this case, Charlotte (and Atlanta) have become the targets.
Being that the OP has appeared on Charlotte's local forum trying to talk people out of moving to Charlotte (while at the same time swaying them towards Tennessee), I'd say he had an agenda when he started this thread too.
I argued that people may prefer Nashville to Charlotte because although it may pay to play it doesn't seem that case in North Carolina where high taxes are not equating great benefits on the same scale as other high tax areas.
Also, I said that because there were hypocritical people who wanted to move to NC for precisely the reason that would be make them choose Tennessee instead.
I think it is time to either let this thread go, or start posting pictures of Atlanta, Charlotte, and Nashville. Atlanta and Charlotte pics should focus on skylines and themeparks (Six Flags and Carowinds). That should be enough to end this thread IMO.
In favor of Charlotte, its skyline is much more developed and looks more like a major upcoming city as far as that is concerned, nashville with its signature tower not being developed is a bit behind in that particular regard.
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.
